The record-union., 1891-02-18
BAD JOURNALISTIC ETHICS.

BAD JOURNALISTIC ETHICS.
The Examiners grade of journalism
was never more clearly disclosed than by
its own editorial under the head of "a
Lesson in Journalism,' published in its
issue of last Sunday morning. 1t says
subscribers, expressing surprise that the
Examiner should have given the use of
its columns, as it did last Sunday, for a
reply to an article on the use of cosmetics
which had appeared in this paper two
weeks before. If aur surprised readers
would consider the difference between q
nelDS article, like the first one referred to,
and an advertisement, like the second,
their wonder would cease"
The trouble with the surprised readers
of the Examiner is that its news articles
and its advertisements alike receive the
moral Endorsement of the responsible
conductors of the paper. When paper
publishes news articles and advertise
ments in the same general form, without
any mark to indicate that one is news
article and the other an advertisement, it
is likely to create surprise in the minds
of its readers. 1t is absurd journalism at
best which will admit to its columns, as
if under the complete Endorsement of the
paper itself, an article for pay. 4 COM
plete illustration of the vice of this prac-
tlce is found in an instance connected
with the Examiners course in the last
campaign. On Sunday it published an
article laudatory of the Leland Stanford
Jr. University in its news columns in the
plain ordinary way in which all
other matter collected for publi-
cation is published It received
charge which admitted it to it's columns
without indicating that it was paid for.
The value of the publication consisted in
the fact that the manner of its publication
did not indicate the paid character of the
work. The great founder of the Leland
Stanford Jr. University was candidate
before the people for United States Sena-
tor, and under no circumstances would
he have advertised his benevolence as a
campaign document. His misguided
friends, however, in his absence did this
for him, and supposed themselves to be
enjoying perfect concealment; but on
Monday, the day succeeding the publica-
ton of the article on the University, the
Examiner denounced the University, de-
nounced Senator Stanford, and declared
that the article which had appeared in its
columns on the day before was paid adj
vertisement. If the misguided friends
who misrepresented Senator Stanford by
paying for this publication had supposed
for moment that their part in the trans
action was to be exposed, they would not
under any circumstances have offered the
article for publication, much less have
paid for it. They did pay, however, and
without doubt were charged a rate which
included the Examiners moral indorse-
ment and its journalistic countenance of
the article it had published. The publica-
ton itself disclosed no indication of any
other purpose than to give the institution
the Endorsement of the paper
The surprised readers of the Examiner
referred to by that paper in the editorial
under consideration, may hereafter sus-
pend all surprise at anything the Eramt-
mer may publish. Such readers as ex-
perience surprise, perhaps hold in their
minds higher standard of journalism
than has been adopted in the Examine,
office. When articles appear merely as
news articles contradictory of each other,
the course of paper publishing these
contradictory articles is, and should be,
matter of surprise to simple-minded,
well-meaning and honest people. The
Examiner calls upon its surprised read
ers to consider the difference between a
news article and an advertisement. The
surprised readers may answer that it is
the publisher who should make some
distinction between news article and q
paid advertisement, so that theI indorse-
ment of the paper may be withheld in
one instance and vouchsafed in the other.