Litchfield enquirer., 1881-07-21
Imparsonal Journalism.

Impersonal Journalism.
 The great daily no longer represents the views of the individual writer. It represents certain amount of capital directing the wri- ter. There are no longer Horace Greeleys writing what they believe, but able editors writing what other people believe. Often we hear of Democrats editing Republican papers; of Republicans editing Democratic papers; subordinating their personal beliefs to the be- liefs of the proprietors. If the same practice should ever come to prevail in the religious press, we shall have Catholics. or perhaps in-- idels, editing evangelical papers. which may thus breathe an odor ofsanctity that will seem anything but edifying to those who know the real views of the editors.
 With impersonal journalism, in short. the newspaper loses it's moral purpose. The stir ing appeals which i'll cur party. journals in times of high political excitement are very likely the work of men who have no personal belief in the views they write to order. While they 30 loudly shout for Garfield in the papers they edit, they perhaps intend to vote for Hancock or not at all.
 A curious instance once came under our own observation of the piability of modern jour- nalstic methods. Just after buying out the Sentinel in 1875 there came addressed to that paper a series of sample letters sent by one of those gentlemen who furnish Washington cor respoDdence for the country press These let ters were savsgely Democratic; they abused the Administration and the leading Republi- can Congressmen with wonderful fervor. At the same time. from the same office, and writ ten in the same hand, there came other letters addressed to the Enquirer of precisely oppo- site political tone. They were as intensely Republican as the Sentinel letters had been intensely Democratic; they attacked the Dem- ocrats with the most virulent personal abuse, and attributed the worst possible motives to the very men belauded in the letters to the Sentinel.
 That is an impersonal journalism carried to, an extreme, yet it is surely 8 sample of the writing to order that prevails in all the great newspaper offices. The result is an utter ab- sence of moial purpose. 6 writing for tempora- " effect, and anexaggeration an of prevalent par tisan differences. that has no real earnestness behind it. Impersonal journalism collects uews admirably; it comments in certain light, superficial way on current events. It risks nothing in the interest of truth It pat ronizes religion and morality merely because that is what is thought to pay best.
 That powerful moral force called character the newspaper has lost by becoming imper- sonal. The original thinker and writer has his audience to make. By slow growth his sphere ot influence widens till it grows grad ually to be power in the community he en- lcghtens. Such used to be the Case with the newspaper writer The rise of the influence of the New York Tribune and the New York Times are examples in point, The Tribune was the vehicle of the personal views of Hor- ace Greeley the Times of the personal views of Henry J. Raymond. The papers partook of and derived their influence from the personal character of their chief editors. The Tribune without Greeley has lost the moral force it de- rived from the character of the man. It may contain as much news; it may print as able editorials. But paper edited by no one knows who, in the interest of no one knows what, can not have character in the sense that the Tribune of Horace Greeley had character.
 We see it asserted and reasserted that Jay Gould controls three of the New York daies. No one knows whether these reports are true- Would it greatly lessen their influence, or re- dacs their circulation if it was true? In the presidential contest of last year the New York Times showed great personal bitterness against Senator Sherman Evidently it's proprietor has personal grievance against the late Secre- tary of the Treasury. What moral influence can papers inspired" by monopolists, or per. sonal hatreds, have with an intelligent public ?
 In other words our great dailies are corpo- rations without souls; editing and printing papers by machinery. They have no more moral sense nor moral purpose than the great corporations controlled by Vanderbilt, Gould
 
 or Scott. Where then. are we to look for the moral leadership? Where is the radicalism winch detects abuses, champions reforms, takes the unpopular side and make it popular, to find expression? Where could Anti Slavery, forty years ago, have found an ad- vocate in such newspapers as we now have? It would seem ss though James Gordon Bennett was the father of modern journalism. He was the greatest of news -gatherers, but there was no moral purpose in him. There was no principle he was not willing to | advocate if he thought it would "take," or which would not denounce If he thought it unpopular. Ills single object was to give his paper the largest circulation, to get the most | advertising, and in short, to make journalism pay. He succeeded. His paper has the lar. gest circulation. the best paying advertise, ments, and is more valuable property than any other American journal. Is not that the success impersonal journalism is likely to consider the most desirable, and for which it is now striving wherever it prevails?
 Not a Fools Brand"