The Robesonian., 1909-05-31
EDITORIAL COMMENT.
ABOUT CRITICISM.

There would be fewer carping,
picayunish critics in this world if
every time one INDUCES in that
sort of criticism of another one
had to prove that one could do
better under the same circum-
stances. 1t is mighty easy to
swell out your chest and say as an
ultimatum that a sermon or
speech or Whatnot was rotten,
the limit, ETC., but suppose the
aforesaid carping, picayunish
critic himself had to do the same
thing under similar circumstan-
ces. Nine times out of ten-and
the other time, too-he would dc
infinitely worse than the one
criticised.
There are critics and critics.
Just and fair criticism is helpful,
and no sensible person objects tc
being subjected to such criticism,
but it is of the carping, picay-
unish kind we are now writing,
and that sort not only does not
help anyone but it hurts; and it
may be truthfully said that it
hurts the one who INDUCES in
that sort of criticism more than
it hurts the one criticised. 1t is
a habit that is altogether perni-
cious and it grows on one and
fastens a habit.
All newspaper men are familiar
with the sort of puny critic who
gets sore at a paper because it
fails at some particular time to
mention something he or she is
particularly interestedin, or fails
to mention something that per-
son has done, and this notwith-
standing the fact that that par
ticular person may have been
dumb as an oyster when the re-
porter asked for news. People
of that kind are usually the very
hardest ones to get any news
from. They may know all about
some event Of interest, but when
one asks them for news they
know nothing, and then when
the paper does not mention the
very thing that that person knew
more about than anyone else the
paper is criticised. And if the
person who objects to the position
given a particular item of news
is less frequently encountered, he
is none the less picayunish ane
puny. Only a few days ago a mar
came into The Robesonian office
and asked that the programme
of certain event be published
He was courteously told that i
had already been published an(
he stated, in a manner implying
that we must be mistaken, tha
he had not seen it. We coult
not remember the exact date o:
the paper in which it had appear
ed, but after looking through
several papers the item was fount
and we were met with the depre
catory statement that the iten
would never be seen in that posi-
ton!
Perhaps it is entirely useless t
explain to a man like that tina
there are no dark corners in
paper; that because he, perhaps
had not seen that issue or had
in carelessly glancing througl
the paper, missed the item, wa
no reason for supposing that 9th
ers had not seen it; that in tn
makeup of a paper it is neces
sary to fit items to the space a
command and to give them posi-
ton according to their relativ
Importance. Because the iter
was of great Importance to hir
and it was of as great impol
tance to us, individually-ou
caller seemed to think it shoul
have been placed at the top Q
the first column on a page, Will
as a matter of fact to the major
ty of Robesonian readers it We
not of as much Importance as tt
smallest bit of local news.
That sort of carping, picayul
ish criticism is enough to max
one exceedingly tired. But tn
instance is merely cited to cs
attention to an all-too-prevale
fault-fnding spirit, and not b
cause we care about that partic
lar criticism; for we care nothil
about it.