The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-07-26
Seeing Through Colored
Glasses

We have read with interest the reports OF the
Cumming Pollard debate In Lynchburg on Tues
day night in the Lynchhurg News. the Lynch
burg Advance. the Richmond Times- Dispatch,
the Richmond Journal. The Richmond yirgnan
and other newspapers, and the writer had
the privilege of hearing the debate from be-
ginning to end. 1t was gratifying to note
that the reports of the debate were sim
gularly fair in all these papers. though there
were natural minor differences to what was
important interesting enough for reporting
and what merely unimportant portions Of
the two speeches. We saw in not one of the re-
ports In the papers named above anything like
garhlng or distortion or a disposition toward
unfarness
Since then we have been somewhat amused
by reading a report in the Richmond News
Leader Of Wednesday written by one OF Its
reporters under his own name. This reporter
has been energetically boosting the Pollard
candidacy and has been detailed by his paper
to follow Mr.. Pollard around the State
and write him up" Unlike the other reports
of the debate. the News Leaders staff man
writes things which are matter OF opinion
and which did not strike any of the other re-
porters present as they appealed to this Jealous
ssichmond, writer says in his story" in that
paper of the debate:
1T Is said that Cummings friends tried to
dissuade him from such course Seeking an
other debate with Pollard) after his disastrous
experience Of last night"
Again the News Leader scribe says In his
"'Pollard ate Cumming up alive This is
the way the voters of Lynchburg are today
expressing their opinion OF last nights joint
debate"
Again this prophet not without honor save
in his own bailiwck says Of the outlook:
"Iynchburg is today bubbling over with en-
thusiasm over the candidacy OF John Garland
Pollard. and that he will carry this city and
county u4ynchburg and CampbelD. along
with majority of others in the Southwest.
seems a foregone conclusion. II the ovation
given him last night can be considered as a
criterion"
Still again Mr.. Wormeley. the News Leader
Pollard booster. says in his story to his paper:
ON all sides OF the r city ta aad9rlum; when heh
gone down in utter and irretrievable defeat be-
fore Mr. Pollard"
II these rare specimens of journalistic judy
ment and representation have any basis In
fact we fail to discover them in the reports
of the affair made by any of the other news
papers represented at the meeting or In any
fact we heard before. during or after
| the debate. The writer talked with many
present at the meeting and knows probably
many more OF the audience than does the
Richm ond writer, but, his Judgment and infor-
nation do not accord with those OF Mr..
Al to the merits of the debate. we pre-
ferred to summarize what the two speakers
sonal friends and to let the reader determine
from these reports just which of the two men
tha-hetter Of the Argument e-snerits
rof the debate. Nor does the News Leader writer
print anything OF the debate itself to sustain
his assertion as to merits OF it. We have read
no better report OF the aI1alr than that OF Wil-
liam b. Smith. staff correspondent OF the Rich
mond Times Dispatch. 1t is singularly full and
fair. but II he had grounds for any such in
ferences as the News Leader man drew and
printed, he failed to state them.
1t IL not matter Of any Importance, but 1t
serves to indicate that Mr. Pollard's press agents
is rather overriding his work and that as a
specimen of color-portrature the wormelcy
port ought to be hung in an art gallery. Mr.
Pollard may well be asking to be delivered
from his friends II he have many more such
as this jealous correspondent--Danvilie Regis
ter.