The weekly times-record. (Valley City, N.D.) 1912-1922, 1913-11-06
WHO is TO BLAME.


builder for a newspaper or magazine.
But who is to blame" The Times-Re.
cord has carefully refrained from al
lowing anything of an unclean nature
to appear in the columns, and have
been sensured for that fact. but not
outstanding, will continue to re-
fuse to exploit the misfortunes OF
those who have been caught in the
lower startas of vice. Everybody's
Magazine covers the matter and in do
ing SO quotes the Outlook. 1t is time
", we'll written and voices the senti-
ment of this paper so fully that we
give it space and urge that our family
Of readers study it carefully.
Do you tell indecent stories to your
family? Do you and your family en-
tertain people who like, and like to
,ell, indecent stories? Whose CONVEX
sation is always just bit off color
but not too much? Who like to make
salacious illusions concerning your
family's friends? Do you really like
10 have such people on terms OF init
macy with your wife, your daughter,
or your son?
Or don't you manage to avoid hay
ing them around?
If you are naturally particular about
the people who come within your fam
Nv circle, why aren't you just as par
sicular about the books, and maya
nnes, and misrepresentation have as
treat an influence within that circle?
In large measure, the magazines
follow the larger trends Of popular
taste and emotions. Some lead, it is
true; but most of them follow the pop
Riar bent.
Just now-in fact, for the last few
,ears-we seem to have been wallow-
lng in a bog of filth Books, the thea
ne, the magazines-each purveyor OF
such public entertainment has tried
TO outstrip the others in smut.
Just smut. Something clever, some
tines artistic ever, usually lnsidious
and often vulgar. But smut, just the
same.
It seems almost as if we were about
10 live up to Shaw's characterization
Of us: Americas official flag should
he white-and black on the other side.
But every such tide of public taste
and emotion has its ebb. 1t is now
turning. ".
At any rate, it is true that people
are beginning to discover the differ
ence between decency and smut, even
when both appear in respectable form
and between hitherto respectable
magazine covers.
But people are only beginning. Smut
is still attractive, surreptitious, and
profitable.
The Outlook says some direct, plain
things that need to be said:
"The men who deal with sex prob
aems on the stage or in fiction, not be-
cause these problems open up thu
sbysses Of human life, but because
they appeal to physical instincts and
ill theatres and sell editions, are
more respectable in station than the
,swners of houses Of ill-fame, but they
are in the same business: they are
one and all panders, and there is ne
more infamous class or occupation.
s'The talk about are for arts sake
truth to life, daring to face the facts
Is pure hypocricy in the case of mel
and women who exploit passion fol
business purposes. The EN-
phasis on the physical grows more
smphatic and audacious, and its oh
Jet is unmistakable: semi-nakednes
is exploited for business purposes; !
is bid for the support of class IL
Abe community who are attracted b!
hdecency so long as indulgence II
that taste does not jeopardize thei
standing as respectable people. Form
ayly this kind of illustration was con
i1ed to semi-obscene journals. /
fhnse journals had increased in mum
Der, it would have been an ominou
Sign of lower moral standards; Blu
the appearance of these Illustration
in publications widely read by re
spectacle readers and taken in re
spectacle homes is much more sci
1pus matter; it means that editors an
publishers believe that this form o
appeal to physical impulses and Sc:
curiosity meets public taste and is al
xsailable method of getting business.
Neither does one need to be Purj
isn or a blue-law advocate to deplor
Eae erotic stories and the nude illus
arasions to which so many of the mag
aznes descend today"
ss1oULD A CHILD GO TO JAIL.