Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1889-05-22
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1850.
Manners i'm JOurn alism.


falling in the general estimation when
we consider some of the standing pecu
liarities of even representative papers.
In mercantile business we often see sharp
and INSCRIPTIONS competition between
different houses but we have never seen
the meanness or the bitterness of bust
ness rivalry carried to the pitch OF Ieck-
less assault in the mercantile that we
have seen in the newspaper world. In
small towns where rivalry is sharp and
the editorial standard is not high,
the exchange of courtesies partakes Of
the frontier and cowboy sweep of ex-
preston. In large cities, where the
great dailies came in contact, the war
fare waged is not a whit behind the
frontier publications in the style Of in
vective with which they belabor each
other, but they reach a depth of mean
ness, sometimes, in their antagonisms
which no cowboy editor would resort to,
even if he hsd the ability to do SO.
Take the leading San Francisco dali
lies in illustration of the fact
For years all the leading pa
pers have made common cause
against the Morning Call. That old
established paper has been the target for
continual assault, and it's editor has
been abused in season and out, right or
wrong. The latest exhibition of business
malice against the Call and Bulletin-for
they are one concern as far as ownership
is concerned-has just been displayed.
The two papers belonged to Pickering,
Fitch and Simonton. Mr.. Simonton
died and trustees were appointed tc
represent the interest of his heirs
The legal guardian of two oil
the minor heirs has commenced
suit against the surviving partners and
the trustees for an accounting. The COM
plant is replete with charges of mis-
management and fraud against the sur
viving partners, and, amongst other
things, it declares that there have been
no dividends made from the earnings OF
the papers for two years. This is the
real pith and animus of the complaint.
Now, anybody who knows anything
about the newspaper business in San
Francisco, knows that the leading dailies
have been spending more money in
keeping up their papers the past two
years than they have earned. The
reason is obvious. One of the dsilies
has unlimited capital behind
it to draw from. Its proprietor
started ia to force its way into
popularity by dint of lavish expense.
The result of this competition was to
force the other papers to do the same or
go to the wall. the surviving partners
of the Call, instead of paying out divi-
dends, put all the earnings of the essab.
lishment into improvements that they
could not avoid making. This
is, CT course, well known
TO the other dailies, but
instead of recognizing the fact, they
parade the dissatisfied guardians COM
plant in bold-faced typas, and draw es-
pscial attention to the charge that the
children of the deceased partoer have
received nothing from the parer since
1877. They allow the inference to go
forth that the heirs are being robbed
by the surviving partners, when they
well know that with the kind
of competition the Call has had
to me t, it has done we'll to bold its place
at all in the field of San Francisco jour-
nslism during the past two years. If
men who conduct great and leading
newspapers can descend to tactics like
this to iDjure rival, how can the public
continue to entertain respect for the pro-
fession? Ii this were an exceptional
instance of the Diet srioration of journal
istic dignity, the faint would not be SO
far reaching; but it seems to be the rule,
and that is why it is working general
harm to the profession.