The semi-weekly messenger., 1904-06-24
rREEDoM OF THE PREss.


Some wise Observations. Caased By,
Recent Happenings, BY the Exzisor
Of The Raleigh Times.
CRaleigh Times.)
The storm il overbiown- The eaui-
librium OF things Is happily quite re-
stored. The treasure which many
thought was In peril OF being swept
entirely away Is as securely ours As
ever Il was before. The press Is free,
permanently free. widely free. free to
speak its mind whenever IT happens
to have one. on measures and on men.
pub,ic or private, without fear OK q
Judgment 10 come from any local. ma
tional or universal authority. In 1883
the father of John Ruskin wrote let
ter TO an American friend and enclosed
a newspaper clipping. which he explain
ed. he cut out because ''the present
postmaster of France. Napoleon Ill.
is not to be trusted with a newspaper
How different here. In this good re-
gion at this good day we knights or thc
white goose plume take no orders OF
any Napoleonic censorship. We are not
terrorized into a colorless inanity, now
ever surely we may at times lapse into
that dreadful state for other reasons.
We have no need 90 mince IL daintiiy
down our Journalistic path lest we Of
fend-lest we offend. In short, we are
free. as was said above--free TO speak
our mind. even though 1t be cracked
or gone abroad. To be entirely frank
ont of respect for our editorial theoI
we may say that there IS but one mar
who can put the brake On our running
pen or who dares do it--only one man
the man who sits in the next room
and cons the subscription list. we
redden behind both our ears TO set down
here this check upon the liberty Of the
press: but we take some comfort In our
frankness and little more In the free
dom which, barring this single Hmita-
tion. Is absolutely untrammeled.
But we rose In all seriousness to put
a question to the brotherhood. Now
that we are reassured OF our liberty or
opinion and OF speech. Is not the mo-
ment opportune for the inquiry. What
do we mean by the liberty OF the press
and what responsibilities. IL any, are
involved in 1t? Is not this instrument
dangerous, as we'll as precious? Does
It not bear two edges? What use shall
we make OF IL? Are We irresponsible
as well as freee
Now, we are in no mood TO read the
brotherhood a lecture as from a high
seat in the synagogue and as IL We
were no sinner as other men are. Our
seat Is a humble one, and We have
come short even as all our fathers did.
But we venture two or three sugges-
tions.
In the first place, Is not the free
press under some sort OF literary
bonds? The English language we
choose as the vehicle OF our free
Ara WHOLLY fires. IN violate
It's traditions and trample un0n its
standards OF respectability? Under the
show of being up-to-date, must we
however write down to the level OF the
latest street slang? Is not vivacity
with poise and decorum OF
language? We cannot aspire TO creative
literature, but may we not discharge
our humber function OF recording the
life of the day and commenting upon
il with at least some breadth and dig.
nityY
Moreover, is not the free press under
some sort Of civic bonds? 1t Is only
the higher forms of social organizations
that confer and guarantee the liberty
Of the press. Have we no obligations
to dignity the political career. to ele~
vate the standard of official duty. to-
solidify the community in the common
against all forms of social
evil? And yet II is to be feared that
social order to which we owe so much.
Is il not possible for the press, by too
much reward for temporary, or local,
or personal, or party influence. to be
the agent of political Injustice. to In
tensify the rancsr Of party spirit. to
perpetuate the SOILS system against
and patriotism OF the
country, and to foster the meanness
and self-seeking Of the public service?
Shall we not rather have ever before our
eyes the ultimats enthronemert OF
in all sections of our po-
litical life?
1t will hardly be denied that the free
press is under some sort OF moral
bonds. in theory at least. For surely
the applicat ton of the ten command
ments to practical journalism is not an
iridescent dream, as ingalls, said re-
specting practical politics. The eie-
morality invorved in the pro-
hibition Thou shalt not steal,'' or
Thou shalt not lie"-how can the edi-
tor and the reporter evade its law?
And yet assertions which compromise
them both continue to be made from
high and unprejudiced sources with an
embarrassing monotony. The late Sir
Leslie Stephen. for example. himself a
journalist OF the highest repute. as well
as philosopher, remarks somewhere,
ITO be on the right side Is an irrele-
want question in journalism And
here are thes strong words OF the Out
look, about particular class OF jour
mails: That fundamental and ingrained
lying which makes the sensational
a concrete mass of falsehood
from cover to cover" What can all
this mean? Does IL mean that some
sections OF the press are SO free thai 4
they are free to lie except on occasionz
It is further charged against some OF
the brotherhood that they are corrupt
ors Of the youth Of the country; and
we fear that the reply Of Socrates to
the same charge Is not in this case
available. A leading western paper
has declared that "the daily Newspaper
has become the most efficient school
OF crime and criminal methods in the
world" Think OF the fiippant vulgari-
ty which Is coming to be the mark OF
some journals; think OF the display OF