Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1885-01-17
JOURNALISM.
y. Ns,rspapsr Asperitiea-f Psrsondi
Erpfa adffoH.

HLptdVWFtOH.
The courteous editor of that esteemed
contemporary the Bulletin politely sug-
gcstes that add TO my modest essays
on Journalism, chapter "to discuss
writer's who are less careful of their dig
nifty than of their diction" And adds
that the mint is necessary in view Of
the tone of irascibility without which our
contemporary would not be itself in
replying 10 criticism" | should accept
the suggestion in the spirit of its prof
fer il it we're not for the loss of
scrap book. Had ! that book, my
bretheren, you should be diverted by an
exceeding rare and racy history Of news
paper asperities, from the times Of Jun
ius to the days Of Ambrose Bierce,
from the first chop room OF the Beef
steak Club to tn. round table Of our
good Nolte. There would be some
thing of Swift and Addison and Dick
Steele, of Warrington and Arthur Pen
dennis, Of Shirley Brooks and Douglas
Jerrold, Of Horace Greeley and the ell
der Bennett, Of James F. Bowman and
Samuel Seabough, of Chester A.
Hull and Dave Nesfeld. 1t would
have been a diverting story, well told
for most of it would have been within
quotation marks. With some assitance
from the scrap books of my comrades,
might have given the pleasing story a
slightly Gallo favor; and have drawn, at
least in outline, some ofthe famous figures
that make Partisan journalists the wit
tiest land the wickedest men alive).
Doubtless you share my disappoint
ment that l cannot.
Were we able so to do, I might grace.
fully have ended my essay by a brie
discussion OF those Honolulan writers
who are less careful Of their dignity
than OF their dictation."
Itake it for granted that my esteemed
brother Of the Bulletin does not con
slider himself 'less careful Of his "dig
nifty" than Of his "diction." And as
am unable to decide for myself Of which
important possession he is the NOR,
careless (if, indeed he possesses either
I think we had best submit that in,
portant question to the decision OF /;
Journalistic congress 1t is true that
might multiply instan ces Of conspicuou
neglect Of dignity on his part; as one O
our esteemed contributors, some tim'
since, multiplied instances Of his neglec
Of diction. Bat that would be an ex
parte showing; and not in cons onate
with that catholicity Of conduct which
makes the Bulletins daily life a con
tinual exemplihcation Of the Golde,
Rule.
| Yet, seriously, there is grain Of jus
tee in the Billetins fling l acknow,
!, ledge the debt. This journal ha
shown--and journals generally IN,
world over, show likewise too mucl
rascibility in replying to criticism
Even the Bulletin turns not Away
''the other cheek. 81 sometimes wonde
il the public discrimin ,tes--if il con
demns justly the unnecessary heat owe
! little things and sympathizes with tn
homes, indignation over great ones.
, I do not undervalue the intelligence
/ Of the reading public. But | believ
; that readers are too careless about .th
b quanels in which their papers engage
a Many readers either are or affect to |
i repelled by asperity and invec,ive. !
S fact. many readers rarely take time
4 discriminate between righteous denu'
i citation and vulgar abuse. II one mus
!. preach forever to such An audience, or
y had best eschew his study OF Swift an
II Greeley and study Baxter and the cd
d torials Of the Lard Oil Reviews
; some kindred publication.