Omaha daily bee., 1899-11-23
RIGHTS OF AN EDITOR.
Some Things Indignant Subscribers
DO Not Fully Realize.

Every editor and this includes even
+ medical editors, occasionally receives angry
letters from subscribers concerning some
article admitted to his columns, says the
Medical Journal. 1t not seldom happens
that the same mail brings other letters ex-
pressing pleasure from the same articles,
The complainants may be right in their
criticisms and the praisers wrong in their
pleasure, because even the best editors may
occasionally err in selective judgment, and
the most OF us may make altogether too
many mistakes. But whether right or
wrong, the critics usually proceed upon one
or more of several erroneous assumptions.
The first pertains to the right Of an editor
to expurge a sentence or paragraph with
which he disagrees in an otherwise accept
able article. That he has no such right is
shown by the fact that the critics would be
the first to deny 1t in the case Of their own
contributed letters or articles The second
faulty assumption is that an article con-
tributed-and the same usually applies to
reports news items and quotations-re-
ceives a half Endorsement il not whole
one by the editor from the mere fact OF
insertion in his journal. 1t seems stupid
to republish in every number the old stereo-
typed notice. This journal does not hold
itself responsible for the views or state
ments made in its columns except those In
the editorial department. and yet the let
ters of occasional correspondents make one
sometimes feel as II this were advisable.
One may even have recalled to mind the
stanza of a great poet:
There was an old man of ThermoDylae,
who never did anything property;
But they said, If you choose to Doll eggs In
your shoes,
You shall never remain in Thermopylae.
Again, it may be suspected that local feel
ing and even a personal animus, indirectly
at least, may have rarely stimulated pas
sionate protest If such is ever the case
the fact that editors are not omniscient may
perhaps be sufficient reason for partial
pardoning on the part of others, although
not by any means authorizing an overland
leniency toward himself on the part of the
editor. mot guilty, but don't do 1t again,
may, perhaps, be the verdict In both cases.
The fact suggests a thought as to the
value and praiseworthness of liberation.
The crudest way to put it would be to say,
too ungraciously it is true, that for the
subscription price no reader acquires the
right to grumble when dspleased, nor in
accepting it does a journal guarantee to
please always and absolutely. An editor |
indeed, may be considered fortunate If he |
that the single negative sticks in the mem
ory more persistently than four positives! |
In a larger way it might be urged that cul-
ture and civilization consist in great part
of the ability to listen to and observe things |
at variance with and even repugnant to
ones private belief, and to do SO without |
acrimony Magnauimity is one of the rarest /!
and most noble of human characteristics,
and 1t should not be forgotten that mag
nanimity is neither Indifference, egotism,
cynicism, nor pty-but something far higher
than any or all of these. 1t is so fearfully |
easy to convince oneself OF ones own per-
sonal superiority that the nobler virtue al
ways inseusibly tends to become the lesser.
Is it not true that every political partisan
needs to read representative journal of
the opposite party? What deplorable mar
rowness does it show when readers demand
that their journals shall voice their own
peculiar views and when a disagreeing or
opposing view rouses anger! All Of this is
ultra medical, and extremes of party feel
ing do not, of course occur in the medi-
cal profession, but glimpses and relics OF
old-time prejudices occasionally appear at
he editorial although we protest none
have done so at ours for some three months!
These atavistic remains, as we have hinted,
consist in most emphatic reprobatiou of
what some luckless contributor has said.
Might one definitely reply: Why not blame
he author instead OF the editor or pub
Usher, and also why demand the uttermost
agreement on the part of ones fellows In
matters either Of science, ethics or esthetics?
Gquanimity is far more lovable virtue
han unanimity.