The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1874-04-01

IA tVt suS AotSSs
that Is, by which they determine what
they shall write. and in what journals
they shall write it. This is not COM
plete definition of the subject. because
it only applies to contributors 10
newspapers, whereas the rules which
govern the relations of editors and
proprietors. whether to each other or
10 the public. equally belong to the
casuistry of journalism. But it de-
fines with sufficient accuracy the par
ticular part of the subject of which
it is here proposed to treat Journal
ism Is more and more taken up as .
profession by educated men, and those
who regularly practice it are only the
nucleus of q still large army of auxil
iaries. Consequently the casuistry of
the subject, the rules, that Is, which
govern the application of general prin-
ciples to the particular cases which
arise in the actual experience of jour
nalistS, will have a practical interest
fer considerable number of persons.
1t ought. moreover, to have an indi-
rect interest for q much larger num-
Der. Probably there is no profession
about which there are SO many hazy
notions afloat as journalism. Al
though public opinion on whole class
es Of subjects, and those very impor-
tant subjects, is mainly formed by the
newspapers. little or nothing is known
OF the moral canons by which jour
nalssts are or profess to be guided.
Most fairly intelligent laymen know
something of the theory by which an
advocate justifies his readiness to uu-
dertake the defence of every cause, or
doctor his refusal to tell q patient
the truth about his condition. But
the cru6est fancies about newspaper
writers are constantly to be met with.
have heard a very well-intormed wo-
man maintain the theory that's jour
nalist has as much right to defend a
cause in which he does not believe as
barister has to defend a prisoner
whose innocence he suspected; and
the whole shoal OF commonplaces
about writing to order show that the
notion is far from being an uneom-
mon one. If to hold this low opinion
of newspaper writers led to greater
independce of thought on the part of
| newspaper readers. the community
might perhaps gain by the unmerited
| disgrace of a particular class. But
the influence of newspapers is not
lessened by the fact that journalism is
often regarded as profession excep-
tionally exempt from professional re-
| straints. The public clings to its
| guides none the less blindly because
it so often proclaims its want of be-
lief In their honesty. The casuistry
tors, may be summed up in three gen.
eral rules. First, journalist should
write nothing which he does not be-
| licve to be true; secondly, he should
write only in journals of whose gener-
al character he approves; thirdly, he
| should agree with the journal to which
| jects on which he writes. The first of
these rules is happily not very difficult
| to carry out in practice There arc
| newspapers no doubt in which the
writer of leading article is at times
little more than the channel through
which the ideas of the editor are con-
veyed to the reader. A closely writ
ten sheet Of note paper constitutes his
brief, and all he has to do is to put
the contents into the most telling SEN
tences he can devise. But even here
the rule, it may be hoped, is only half
broken. If the Journalist in question
| does not write what he believes to be
true, it does not follow that he writes
| what he believes to be false. More
often he writes that of which he does
| not know whether it is the one OF the
| other. Ii he is worth retaining on the
staff of any important journal, he Is
not likely to remain long in this state
| of ignorance, and in most eaees in
| creasing knowledge will bring With it
| stronger conviction. There are in
| stances, no doubt, of men Of real po-
| litical ability who remaiR to the mere
| hired swordsmen of their employer
| for the time being But the race is
| dying out, partly from the growth of
a higher conception of professional
morality, and partly from cores
ponding change In the requirements
of newspaper readers. As rule, it
may be said that no established jour-
nalist is now asked or expected to say
in the person of the editor that which
he would not say in his own person.
The staff of newspaper is usually
large enough to provide genuine re-
presentatives of all the views set forth
in il, and the advantage of having the
will of the writer with him as we'll as
his pen is obvious enough to strike
even the least scrupulous editor. 1t
may be thought perhaps that strict
| observance of this FIRST rule makes
both the others unnecessary. If . man
writes nothing but what he believes
to be true, why should it matter where
he writes it? An editor 10 properly
held responsible for everything that
appears in his paper, inzsmuch a.
nothing can appear in it without his
consent. But a contributor has no
control over any but his own articles.
and there can be no need to make his
responsibility more than co-extensive
without his control. There is plau-
sible air about this reasoning, but the
instincts of journalists are agzinst it;
and where mems instincts point in an
opposite direction to their interests,
they are usually safe guides. 1t ID
generally felt that . liberal writer
ought not to contyibnte to conserva-
tive paper, or a conservative witer to
liberal paper, even though his arti-
cles deal exclusively with subjects on
which he and the conductors Of the
papers are at one. Il will be shown
Immediately that this principle is sub
ject TO several qualifications; bat, With
| proper allowances for these, il 10 .
thoroughly sound principle. By con-
tributing to . Journal, . nAn doe his
best to help its circulation. How
ever low an estimate he may form of
his own work, he must know that the
editor thinks it worth paying for Il
I n. a - IL \ n ~