The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1877-09-06
A Short Chapter on the Publishers
Business for the Information
of Certain individuals.

an article under the above caption
which we think suits our case in Van
couver as well as though we had written
it for this paper. We have decided to
publish it, for two reasons; first, we
had intended to write an article on the
same subject and this one is so near to
what we should say, that we could not
now write without mourning the CEN
sure of plagiarism on the Hillsboro pa
per. Second, it is already written and
saves us the work; and this is reason
enough of itself. We hope everybody
will read the article, for if they don't,
how are they to know who Certain
Individuals arel 1t is as follows:
1t is only through ignorance of jour
nalism and what is demanded OF the
newspaper publisher that any body
will become angry with him for pub
fishing all matters of court record or
local or general Importance, or any mat
ter, III fact, OF common report, for com
mon report is admitted in the courts las
evidence of fact All court proceed
ings are Legitimate news for every body,
and the publisher o,ces it to his readers
to publish them, and it is only those
ignorant of journalism who would be-
come angry with him for doing his du-
ty in giving his patrons and the public
the news And no one has a right to
demand that he shall SUPPRESS any part
of such proceedings, and when it is
asked as 5rcor the publisher should
consider whether or not he can qtord it.
In matters of common report it becomes
a question of Judgement with the pub
Usher whether he should publish or
not. He ought to be morally certain
of the truth of an injurious report be
fore giving it to The world. Nearly
every day he is called upon to publish
or suppress certain news much sought
after therefore financially valuable to
him-and he has to decide whether to
please and instruct the public and pun
ish the individual or disappoint the for
mer and shield the latter Commonly
he will look at such question from a
business standpoint and cater to the
taste of the public regardless of the eff
feet it will have on the individual, but
this is a selfish and marrow view. 1t
should be his desire TO shield every one
who he feels reasonably sure is trying
to make himself better, but when he is
satisfied that the individual has no re-
spect for his friends, abuses them be-
hind their backs, delights to annoy his
neighbors, and is proud of his own de
basement, he should take little pla-
tonic pleasure in telling the public of
the habitat and character Of the animal
1t is true that newspaper publication
of persons bad actions should be the
last resort, as the surgeons knife is the
last resort for gangrened limb, and
ike this instrument, it should be keen,
quick and brave, when it does under
take the business.
In the minor Earrings and ck-bit-
ings of ncighborhood the newspaper
should not enter into personalities, and
where difficulties arise through misnn-
Outstanding, mistake or sudden passion,
especially if the parties have generally
been respectable and peaceable citizens,
names should not be mentioned, but if
given to rowdyism they should be pub
lished by name. But where crime has
been committed aud the publisher is
morally certain of that fact, the name
or names should not be Withheld, though
ii an arrest has been made or the mat
ter is likely to come into court, com
ments on the crime should be withheld
so as not to prejudice the cause of the
guilty party. Still where audacious
and unmitigated crime has been done,
publication and merciless criticism
should go together.
1t is impossible to follow the above
rules strictly, because the editor must
often decide at once upon matters about
which there is doubt, and sometimes he
must rely upon statements OF CORES
pondents living at distance, and it
being his business to give the ne,cs, and
compete with rival papers, he often
gives matters publicity which the day
after he would be glad to recall.
1t is by no means a pleasant duty
e Al l. .rl....l -