Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1914-03-31
The Lot of the Editor.

OF course there are editors and edi-
tors editors good editors bad and edi-
tors Indifferent, and while we have in
mind a brief discussion Of the subject,
we would prefer to do it with the idea
that what we have to say is in purely
an impersonal way.
1t takes all kinds Of people to make
a world, and all kinds of people have
all kinds Of aspirations and ambitions
Some want to be preachers, some
farmers, some merchants, some bank
ers. some bricklayers, some ditchers
and although there are thousands who
would not be editors for anything If
they could help it, there are some who
actually think they would like to be
editors
We do not care to be understood as
desiring to encourage anybody to be-.
come an editor and we would not offer
any encouragement. We recognize
that this is a matter which in some
unexplainable way and through some
kind of a law that is not fully defined,
these things regulate themselves. and
that being the case it is not worth
while to try to encourage or discour-
age.
Speaking of the lot of the editor the
editor Of a secular newspaper, especi-
ally we mean, it is not different prob
ably from that Of other men. 1t is very
largely a matter of his own peculiar
makeup, mentally, spiritually and 9TH
erwise, and the same is to be said Of
most other men in practically all other
avocations.
The man who does his duty in this
world has his work cut out for him, no
matter what his calling, and it Is prob
ably true that it is no more difficult for
him to do his duty in one walk of life
than in another
Every line of business, professional
or industrial activity has it's peculiari-
ties, and the most striking popularity
of the position of the editor and pub
Usher, probably is the large amount of
private responsibility he has to incur
in the performance of strictly public
duty.
The editor necessarily has his pri-
vate views Of all matters Of public
concern, including many individuals;
but must recognize the Importance Of
being forever mindful Of the existence
Of a line between his private views
and the public duty of his paper, and
this mindfulneSs alone involves con-
stant care and consideration.
Outsiders who are not encumbered
with the peculiar responsibilities of the
editor and publisher naturally find it
much easier to determine what the
than do the editor and publisher. II
the outsider had the responsibility
along with his views, his views would
frequently be very different from what
they are.
The pressure on the editor from
friendly; but irresponsible sources to
do this and to do that, is often so great
as to perplex the editor to the utter
most, for since even editors are some
times human, it is very difficult not to
be influenced by the needs and impor
tunities of friends. Most editors, how
ever who have successfully followed
their professions, for as long as, say
ten consecutive years, are willing to
testify that if they had gotten into the
habit of yielding to the needs and in
fiuence Of friends, rather than what
they conceived to be their duty to the
public, their length of service would
not have stretched out to the full COM
pletion Of the ten year period.
This looks pretty hard and cold; but
nevertheless it is a fact.
However, we do not want to create
the impression that the editor cannot
have friends. He can have them and
does have them. The editor is by no
means the only individual whose fairly
comfortable existence is dependent
upon his loyalty to duty. There are
many others, and among these the
editor finds friends-friends who do
not demand his ruin as a price of their
friendship.
While of course the general public
can have no adequate appreciation Of
the fact, for the reason that the gen.