The Brookhaven leader., 1888-06-21
Personal JOURNALISM.

BE.hSoN NJ JoN IL - NbtS"s
To our mind there has hecn more
tomfoolcry written and spoken ON
this subject during last year. and es-
pccially within the last two months,
than upon any subject the State Press
has ever discussed. Most of those
who have placed themselves upon
record us condemning personal iourn-
alism. have signally failed to define
what they mean Ivy the term, and
were il not for the well-kuown pen
chant of this class of writers for dis
pensimg personal "taify", one might
read " conclude that they aleopposcd
To all forms of personal journalism,
whether complimentary or otherwise.
We are left to assume, however. that
only that kind of journalism which
is personally offensive to the party or
parties pcrSonated, is objected to.
Nothing must I've said which by or
binary Interpretation ar the most
strained construction. can be cunstru-
ell as rejecting personally upon any
one. even though he hca public official
whose record is putrid and rceking
with corruption. or the slcekeSt, most
trcachtrous and deceitful politician
who ever betrayed cOntiding constit-
ueucy. Some few who deprccate
personal journalism have defined their
views differently, but to our mind,
not more scnsibly. They say it comes
within the legitimate province of the
journalist to criticiSe the acts of pub
lie officials and candidates for public
office. even to the exposing of any
crookcdneSS of which they may have
been guilty. but that this must he
done in such diplomatic terms a. not
to give personal ottenSe.
Could any thing he more absurd or
prcpOstcrous! In the first place, it is
the duty, no less than the privilege of
free press to discuss men i'll conncc-
ton with their public relations, and
if need be. to lay bare any facts con-
corning them which it is to the inter-
est of the public to know. The pa
irons of the ordinary political news
paper have the right to expect this,
and that their interest shall thus be
protected. Indeed, the position of the
true iournalist-his obligation to tell
the truth and spare nOt-iS only sec
ond in solemn and noble responsibility
to that of him who, armed with Di-
vine commission from on high. must
WELD the sharp twO-edgcd Sword of
the Spirit against mems moral infa-
mics; and the editor who. through
sinister motives or Il craven fear of
personal violence, betrays his high
and sacred trust, is far more deSpica-
bic and worthy of censure than the
vilest wretch his treachery may shield.
Neither is it by any means true, as
many have supposed, that the con-
scientiouS editor always takes pleas
ure in criticising and pointing out
wrong. Far from it. We are sure
cases have occurred when the editor
regretted the necessity for criticism
as much as the dearest friend of the
criticised, and he would not have
done SO, except from sense of duty
to the public. If under such circum-
stances the truth reflects upon pri-
vate character, could the writer be
Justly denounced as licentiOus scrib-
bier, engaged i'll personal journal
ISM" TO illustrate, suppose the law
requires at the hands of an officer
certain duties and he ignorantly or
willfully neglectS to discharge them,
to the detriment of the public service
and the injury of the people, is it not
the legitimate mission of the press to
expose the obliquity of the official and
protect the interest of the State, or
should the editor he shot for assailing
private character? Suppose Il public
official should sign document pur-
porting verify on its face, which
proved to be untrue, is the press
guilty of Righteousness, if it says So2
Suppose an official embeZzles public
funds, or issues illegal certificates of
Indebtedness against the public treas
ury, or knowingly permits the people
he was elected to serve to be robbed
by snaky schemes of shreWd and IL
responsible individuals, would not the
press be recreant to its mission, if it
did not boldly denounce such wrongs?
And. if Il truthful statement of the
facts, as they appear on record, would
involve the personal character of the
official, must the editor abstain from
publishing them, under penalty of
death?
But is there, as some have contend
ed, such thing as an editors expos
ing the crooked records of men with
out being Ito them and their friends)
personally offensive? There is not,
and those who so contend, are argu-