The sun., 1891-05-25
Tho Editing Of . Newspaper.


about the editing of q newspaper, but we
than is contained in an article on the SUBJ
ject In the Independent by Mr.. ARTHUR REED
K1MBALL. the editor OF the Waterbury Amer
ican. Connecticut journal.
The text OF this extraordinary discourse
is an account by Mr.. LoRRETUs S. MErcALF
of the methods and principles Of editing
magazine which were adopted by the late
Mr.. THoRNDIKE RICE In the conduct OF
the NJ rth American Reuie,D. and which Mr.
K1MBA1I describes as bad. because they
were borrowed from successful newspapers.
When Mr.. RICE bought the North American
for trihing sum 1t was in moribund con-
dition. It was almost wholly unread, ex-
cept by the authors OF its articles
themselves. and for the very good
reason that It's contents were not Of interest
to the public. and usually were Of no i'm
portance. Yet under his management the
North American became powerful and
widely circulated magazine.
So remarkable q result would seem to be
signal proof Of the soundness Of the edi-
CALF, who was his assistant. now un-
dertakes to apologize for the part he
himself took as a subordinate In the en-
terprise. as II he was ashamed Of 1t. II al
lowed myself" he says, to be considerably
influenced by Mr.. R1cE's undoubted belief
In the practical business advantages" Of
'articles which tended to be sensational"
AS Mr.. METCALF had no discretion in the
promises except to retire from the employ
ment II he did not like it. that Is very
cool way Of describing the situation. He
was not at all responsible for the editorial
policy orthe magazine; and instead of being
" considerably Influenced" by Mr.. RICE, he
was altogether under his direction. More
over, when he left the North American to
establish a rival magazine Of his own, Mr..
METCALF copied the methods Of his master
very closely.
Mr.. RICE followed the policy pursued so
successfully by the London monthly re-
views. which Of recent years have gone far
to displace the old-fashioned quarterlies as
vehicles OF thought and opinion. In other
words, he secured papers on subjects OF pub
lie interest and from men whose views are
Of special interest to the public. That was
his "scnsationalism." Really 1t was only
giving the people chance to hear the views
Of those to whom they most readily listen
on questions OF current discussion, and usu.
ally those are the men most worthy OF their
attention or they would not command it.
Mr.. KlMBALL, tho Connecticut editor, takes
Mr.. MErcALF very seriously, and treats his
attempt ut sclf-display as an important ex-
posurc, showing "in undlsGutsed badness tho
principle Of 1t all. the principle
N oditing down to catch the masses" (which
has been applied with such ointment COM
mercial SUCCESS to modern journalism"
Why does ho particularize modern Journal |
sm alone? Why docs no not also include
among those who have written down
u to catch tho Masses" all the popular
writer's OF oil tlmes, SHAKEspEARE,
Sir WALTER Scorr. BYRON.
VICTOR HUGO. THACKERAY, and tho |
rest? They werc equally chargeable |
With the Sin of interesting the great
mass of the public. and for that reason they
slso had "eminont commercial success"
They gavo the public what they wanted to
cad; and. In general, tho measure of tho
greatness Of an author is his ability to
the attention OF all sorts and
conditions OF men, the learned and the sim
dc. Yet this Connecticut editor makes 1t q
,hargc against newspapers that tho people
ike to read them.
Or course, newspapers are edited to "catch |
ho masses" for they are edited for the
vholo public. They are made to be read
rom day to day by all the people. and the
'etter they are the more readers they will
ret in the long run. Vicious journals may
AVE an ephemeral success but as soon as
hey are found out, for what they are the
,eoplc let them alono.
Mr.. KIMBALL will never be OF consequence
S an editor until he has truer and higher
OF what newspaper is.