The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1886-11-22
umns. Tho public is impressed with


the mystery surrounding the author
ship OF leading articles, which are
vaguely regarded as the offspring of
the combined wisdom of the paper. In
fuence is as valuable q franchise to q
newspaper as reputation is valuable to
an author. An editorial signed "Wm
Johnson" dffuses no more influence
than the said Mr.. johnson carries with
him as an individual; and as that gen
tleman is not often 4 man of command
ing position, his influence is not wide
ly distributed. 1t is not the case here,
us in France, that statesmen and schol-
ars eminent in literature are active con-
tributors to the editorial columns of the
press. There the man makes the
newspaper. His name is, therefore,
valuable to it. Here the writer is moth
ing without the paper, and his name is
of no consequence Our public reads
the paper. A signed editorial would
be no more regarded than rs a person
al communication TO the paper, in
which the writer's views, inclinatlons,
and deductions are spread before tho
public, and it would have no more
weight than the communications of
"Veritas," "Pro Bono Publico," Jun
ius," or any one of that great army of
scribblers that we are familiar with.
An unsigned article in loaded BREWER
on the fourth page is the concrete ex-
preston of the newspaper. Its inilu-
cnce is measured by the standing Of
of the paper and the alb lily or plausi-
bilty with which the argument is car
red out. Its authorship is popularity
attributed to the editor-in-chief. Mr..
Charles A. Dana is praised or blamed
for what The Sun says, yet Mr.. Dana
writes very little of what is printed in
The Sun. He simply assents to what Is
written by allowing it to appear, or he
may suggest the outline of an article.
The impersonality of the article makes
it his, because he is the only person
known to the public rs the editor of
The Sun. Sign one Of those editorials
and take away from it the superstition
of Mr.. Dana's auth orship, which is the
sign-manual of The san newspaper,
and it will pass for only what it is actu-
ally worth; and as n great many Of
them are worth but very little, the pa
per is the loser. Hence il ID with the
interest of the paper to preserve that
impersonality which gives a fictitious
val ne 10 its editorials by fixing them on
a mysterious authorship.
We smile in good-natured derison of
the oraces of Greek and Egyptian del
ties, and put true value Oh their pre-
tended theomanccs. The fraudulent
priests who deludcd their votarics with
the bel eff that they were interpreting
the words of the gods were venerated,
not for what they said, but for what
the detes said through them. Their
prophcsies and counsels were obeyed,
as coming from the gods; but had they,
rs men, SAID the same things, they
would not have been needed. And
yet when we read an opinion of "Wm.
johnson" in the Ga!cite or the Times,
in our ignorance we give it the whole
weight of the respect we feel for the
paper. The paper is our deity and its
uttcrances are oracles to us. The
fraud is rs great now as il was when
pract'ccd on tile ignorant heather,
But would we have it different? No.
There are many idols that may better
be worshpped than shattered. The
deception hurts no one. The newsper
is the Great Nirvana in which indivd-
ualty is merged and consciousness
lost. Why disturb the relations to
which the public is accustomed, and
make the paper a reflex of the minds
of A, b, and c, without homogeneity
or rcgularityP For that is what pure
personality in the editorial columns
must lead to, if logically carried out.
If the controlling mind OF the editor-in-
chief is to direct the policy of the pa
per; then all the editorial opinions
must conform to that policy, and the in
dependence of personalism is destroyed,
which was its chief end. The writer
who signs his name to an article, die
tated and limited by superior, prac-
tees fraud on the public; for the
views therein set forth are not his own.
The language and style only are his,
but not the thought and will. There
fore, he has gained nothing except,
perhaps, that his vanity is tickled by
seeing his name in print; while the pa
per has lost its influence by dissolving
the solidarity of the editorial mind.
So we reach negative conclusion, and
answer to the question that promised
this article, personal journalism is not
needed -EdWard Lee, ia The Current.