Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1905-04-21
NEWSPAPER ETIQUETTE.

In the discussion OF public ques.
tions we have always been a stlckler
for that professional etiquette which
demands that a newspaper shall re-
main impersonal and that the individ.
ual editorial and other writer's shall
not be dragged into the public eye.
The best newspapers of the country
have adopted this rule, not because
Their editors are afraid OF what nar
row.minded and hostile contempora.
ries may say Of them, but because
the individual Is OF little or no i'm.
portancc To the public. II Is the view
that counts irrespective OF the per-
sonality OF the man who happens to
dictate II. II IL a fact. too. that those
editors who are most anxious TO re-
move the mote from their brother
editors individual eye, have been the
least concerned about the beam In
their own eye.
We believe the time has quite
come, when the editors of New Mex.
leo should decide to discuss ques-
lions OF public nature through their
newspapers impersonally. Our belief
is founded upon no fear OF the loss Of
the esteem and confidence Of the pub.
lie, through any personalities relating
TO o~urselfs but upon the feeling that
the public gets very weary OF wading
through personalities, dealing with
individual editors, In order to reach
the argument in the discussion OF d
public question.
A conspicuous offender In the re-
spcct Of which VI speak has ever
been the Albuquerque Citizen. We
have had occasion OF late to commend
the improvements made In that paper.
We hoped the reform might extend
far enough to cover this bad habit as
well. Apparently, IL has not done so.
The Citizen In denying a statement
made by The Optic thst there was
disagreement among the members OF
the Joint Statehood league takes &C,
casion to affirm that the editor Of The
Optic aud his chief assistant are
prominent in church work and 10 lee.
tnre them upon what would have
been Christlike In the discussion oil
the statehood question
Az far as our statement concerning
the disagreement among The members
Of the statehood league was concern
ed II was based upon an article In
one Of the Albuquerque papers which
stated specifically and clearly that
such disagreement did exist and
which named three prominent citizens
who IN open meeting opposed the On
dorsemeni Of point statehood by the
league.
But the purpose Of this article II 4
discuss the inclination nf our conteni
porary 10 become personal In the dis
cussion Of public questions. the at
tempt 10 drag Into a discussion per
sonal characteristics Of editors is 1t
poor enough taste. Hut TO call into
question ones Christian standing ap
pears 70 us much worse.
We have read in sioly Writsa sol
enn warning to them that judge WI
have read. also. that only those who
are without sin may cast stones. Ant
we have read of u who said that tbs
devil may cite Scripture for his pur
pose.
He who undertakes % call into
question the Christianity of another
ssumes a grave responsibility. III
assumes 10 he arbiter on matters tha
concern only an individual and hi
maker. Thai being SO, We do not as
sumo TO judge the Christianity of th'
gentleman who is editorial writer 70
our contemporary, or his motives II
shying stones at Us. Possibly. as h
views his life In retrospect, his con
science Is as clear M is ours.
so has ours But It Is not for the publ