The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-01-08
AN EXPLANATION.
Rev. DIR. Conntermine Writes q
Statement.
Is Penitent, Humble and Con-
trite, All Three.
LACKED INFORMATION.
Got 1t From Alleged Newspaper
Man Who
Was " Not Careful and Might
Have Modified It."
LACKED INFORMATION

corning his attack upon the newspapers
before the Ministerial union this week:
"Since the paper which 1 read yester-
day before the Ministerial union has
been so numerically criticised and my
self condemned, and since am pen1-
tent, humble and contrite, you will Ger
tainly allow a few clarifying words
touching the whole matter First-The
subject was assigned me, did not
choose or even suggest it. Second-The
subject as it came to me, and as l en-
deavored to treat it, was the simple
proposition. Does the Abuse of Our
Public Men by the Press Foster An
archy?' The question was not, as you
see, Does the Press Abuse Our Public
men?' That is assumed in the sub
ject and / so stated it in the paper.
think the assumption is true. That is
my honest conviction. Hence I did not
discuss it, but proceeded to show how
such abuse, whether done by the press
or in any other way, fosters anarchy.
Man is naturally an anarchist. He is
in rebellion against God. His nature is
corrupt, and contended that whatever
appeals to that corrupt nature fosters
anarchy. / affirmed that the abuse of
our public men by the press did appeal
to mans corrupt nature. In proof of
this point 1 cited many Illustrations
from history, literature and science
that all abuse of men or privileges APP
pealed to this corrupt nature of ours.
That abuse is wicked, especially as
there was no need of it. The best of
our papers do not indulge in it. 1t
should be stopped. l suggested that
our lawmakers should stop it, and be-
heVe they will. The ministers present
voted that my paper be published, and
1 will see that it is. Some of those who
spoke against it never heard it Others
only heard part of it. Others spoke
against what they supposed I said. Not
more than a half dozen who spoke kept
to the subject. The article which I
read, not as a part of my paper but
after the discussion had taken place,
was sent me through the mail, and with
the article came this letter, which in
justice to the author 1 desire you to
publish:
Dear Sir-Complying with your re-
quest of few days since 1 inclose here
with a brief statement of my views of
yellow journalism and its influence.
The article herewith is not carefully pre-
might elaborate it or modify it. but 1
am inclined to hand it to you in its pres
ent shape
The reason why requested this gem
tleman to give me-his opinion is that I
am not newspaper man. / do not
know anything about running a news
paper save as others have told me their
experiences. 1 did not want to misrep-
resent them or to put a different con-
struction on what they published from
that they intended. He being, as he
said, newspaper man, I was anxious
to have him give me his opinion, and he
false can be known only by those who
see the internal workings. When my
paper read before the ministers and
heartily Endorsed by the majority of
them, is published 1 trust you will take
enough of your valuable time to read
it,
The State Journal was astonished at
the abuse Of the press and the miscon-
ception and lack of knowledge of news
paper methods displayed in Rev. DR..
Countermine's paper and the appendix
thereto read before the Ministerial
union this week.
Much of what was read is so Senseless
that it is scarcely worthy of a reply be-
from the pastor of one of the most
prominent churches in Topeka, and
from one who should weigh his words.
who has time to investigate, and who
should be influential
If the minister could spend a few
days amid the actual workings of a
newspaper office, see the pains taken to
secure accuracy, note the money spent
to obtain facts and the conscientious
efforts to present news as it is. he would
certainly not have given publicity by
his own tongue to the words which he
uttered.
In the last paragraph Of his paper
proper he says some things which are
inconsistent with what goes before and
with what follows. The easiest and
most charitable explanation of what
in to abuse the press in such haste that
he took no time to secure the facts.
The cartoon to which the minister re-
fers is simply one method of criticism
of wrong political actions. 1t would be
as senseless to pass law prohibiting it
as it would be to pass a law preventing
criticism of the acts of public officials.
The cartoon is a favorite method used
by one of the most widely circulated
journals in this country. a
picture is often more effective than
words.
Dr. Countermine is too pessimistic.
Men do not love darkness; they love the
light. Otherwise. the jails and prisons
and the dark places would be fuller
good deeds and the churches and
the schools. lie is not believed by the
ma jority of men sooner than the truth.
Otherwise, there would be more false
hoods in circulation than truths.
Modern Journalism is denounced by
the preacher as corrupt, nonsensical, de
based, unreliable and desperately
wicked. If this be true, the newspaper
business than the people running sa-
loon or a joint. If DIR. Countermine be-
lieves one third of what he read he
would not permit a daily newspaper to
enter his home, and he should warn
every one of his congregation to neither
buy nor read the public prints, nor per-
nit any member of his family to see
daily paper.
He says: Almost any one is COM
petent to abuse another. 1t requires
neither heart brains nor religion A
fool can do it" DR. Countermine is
certainly abusive. Should he not turn
his words against himself? He is
pleased in his own arrogance to say
of the editor. He is in this business
just as other men are in their business
to make a living, hence he publishes
what the majority of the people want
and are pleased to have.
The same might be said of the pastor
of the Presbyterian church. He would
probably reply that he also follows ms
calling to. do what good he may be able
TO do The same is true of the editor
A GOOD af7ito, con do more good than