The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-02-12

A4NAk8oHAL JOUBEALz8lzs
The Waco Ezqniner, in an articleon this
subject uses the following language.
'1mpersonaI journalism Is simply an i'm
possibility. Every paper in the world which
has acquired position and influence among
the masses has borne the impress Of strong
individual character. The ZriBasHe, the
Herald, the KIprsss, the Springfield RePKb-
lean, and many other papers in this country
are notable examples. Imagine the Tribune
without Greeley, the Herald without Ben
nett.
To this the Houston Mercury takes issue,
and in its opening paragraph says:
Our contemporary has studied the history
Of journalism 70 very little purpose, If It
concludes that che tendency Of the age Is
not to independent, impesonal Journalism.
That the Tribune and the Herald, and some
other great papers, were founded by men Of
strong individuality, and that for years the
impress Of their founders was given to their
journals, proves nothing. The fact vanishes
into the air when we recall to mind that the
Herald Is without its Bennett, and the Tri-
bune without its Greeley, and 50 have been
for year OF more. yet these great journals
have lost nothing Of their power or in
huence.
It also gives a striking example Of inn
personal journalism" in the London Times,
denominated, and not improperly, s'the
thunderer Of England !" and with more pro
riety should have said of Europe.
We assume that impersonal journalism is
not only an impossibility, in the language
Of our Waco contemporary, and that the
impress Of strong individual character will
not only manifest itself and be recognized,
but that it would be dishonest not to do so.
We contend, further, that every journal
that has departed from this rule has felt its
blghting effects. With the management of
the London Times We know but little. But
we are conversant with this fact, and all in
telligent, well informed men are aware of
it, that the distinguished men who
have presided over its columns were known
and honored throughout Europe. OF the
journals Of this country we are more con-
versant. What did the New YORK Herald
gain by impersonality 2 No DISCUSSES or
concealments could hide the men whose
eminent abilities have given them and that
paper q national and worldwide reputa-
ton, while every error committed was Wis
tied upon the head of its distinguished
founder.
And we have an instance in this State,
not less remarkable. A gentleman distin-
guished for his ability, respected by all
who knew him, the felicity, purity, and
perspicuity of whose style and versatility of
genius have been universally admired.
What has he gained by impersonality:
Money, it may be, but what elsel And at
what cost9 And we ask the question,
would he not have been even more prosper
GUS pecuniarily, had he maintained that in.
dividuality, in which he was recognized for
over a quarter of a century as the Nestor Of
the Texas press, and whose opinions, ema-
mating from Ihim personally, had pro-
found impression upon the public mind2
Walker and Halsey, Of the Picdyune, and
that brilliant array of journalists on the
Shreveport Times, are as we'll known as if
their names were subscribed to their admir-
able productions.
Vanity and egotism are Of course to be
deprecated, but intellect and character are
entitled to recognition. And not only so,
but they exercise favorable influence not
only in journalism, but in oil the relations
Of life. A paper derives its circulation
from them. There must be confidence and
responsibility, and there can be neither
when there is impersonality. Sir Walter
Scott, Bulwer, Douglass Jerrold, and
Washington Irving were recognized by
their individuality, and their great abilities
wero never fully known and admitted until
they were personally brought before the
public. The Spectator was mOdelof style
and Of originality of thought. It was con
Quoted by Addison, Steele, and a host of
illustrious authors, who adorned the past
century, and to each of whose productions
there was affixed signature. In short, the
individual character Of man in every ca
pacity, while it is valuable to himself, is not
less so to others.
There is shoddyism in journalism, as in
everything else. Talent and great abilities
are worthy of recognition, and the sense Of
the country viii acknowledge superior
minds even If hidden under a cloud. Moth
ing can obscure them and they stand out in
their own impersonation.
But this is not all. They add weight and
dignity to journal. They give it charac-
ter and circulation. A man, or set ofmen,
at the head of paper that fail to see it
stand in theirown light. LISA great error,
and one for which there is no compensation.