PIERROT ABROAD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 249, 17 October 1908, Page 14

PIERROT ABROAD.

THE DECLEvE OF THE LONDON PRESS. There is a limit to all things. There is a limit even to the extent to which a newspaper may debase itself to enlarge its circulation. And I hold that the London Pre.-o. or at least the London halfpenny which covers the greater number of 'the daily papers, lias overstepped it to an alarming extent. Newspaper enterprise is one thing—a mean, prying curiosity, which would 'be insufferable as displayed by an individual, into the most trivial intimacies of private life, is another. When the same leading paper follows Mr. John Bums into i small Soho restaurant, te.lls mc what he had for lunch, and that he tipped tihe waiter: shadows Mr. Winston Churchill's fiancee, and snapshots her as she is about to enter the home of her Ministerial lover: and bhen dodges «ound the Exhibition to spy on the two little princes, and to tell mc how many pence they r-pent o>n this and that —well. 1 feel like kicking any corporate embodiment of that paper that is ready to my foot. 1 Perhaps tlve crowning offence of this iveek has been a well-known daily paper's snapshot of "nhe First Lord of the Admiralty having a dip in the sea with his bride. For coarseness and brutal intrusion thfe beats anything 1 have seen in a life which has been spent quite otherwi-se than in cotton wool. Such a gross abuse of the rights of the Press —such a glaring adoption of conduct that in a- private citizen would be caddi.sli and unpardonable— shows a weakening of the ethics and savoir-vivro of London journalism that it- saddening and disheartening in the extreme. Thait Mr. McKenna. Mr. Churchill, or Mr. .lohn Burns would on all private analogy be perfectly ju<-.tHicvd in knocking down their respective pryiing cads 1 feel assured; and 1 cannot 'help I feeling .so far from professional fraternity in this case that 1 should have rejoiced had they taken this course. Another depressing factor in Fleet-street to-day is the rapid growth of tie two Newspaper Trusts —for the gigantic operations of I the Harmsworth (Lord NorthcUffe) and ! Pearson syndicates have pstablis'hed two mists tlnvt threaten in the course of a i few years to control the whole press of I London. The following table will show how the newspapers of London are pausing into combined control: — NOKTHCLIFFE. PEARSON. Times. Standard. Daily Mail. Daily Express. Kvening News. Evening Standard. (J lobe (one of the iiud Harmsworth familyV St. James' Gazette. Daily Mirror (same Interest.!. Then, since the '"Daily Chronicle" is now printing the "Westminster Gazette, -, k. is reasonable to suppose that there is some working agreement between these two paper*. But in any case the fact remains That every one of the papers with the largest circulations, with the sole exception of the "Daily Telegraph.' , is now under combined ownership. It is generally realised that the whole of the Press of London must undergo a great change in the near future. That means that it will tend' to be Daily-Mail-ized., cheapened—turned from the issue of news to the serving-up of spicy dishes of gossip of irrelevancy. I have it on direct personal authority from a high source -that even "' The Times " is to be " modernised " under the new Nort.licTfffe direction; and it is hardly likely that the "" Morning Post." alone in its oldworld dignity, will continue to piay its solitary role of resisting the forces of sensationalism. Of course, there are two sides to this. as to almost every question. Personally, I think the constant forward movement of the Press is as necessary as that of most industry or of surgery. But that is not where, the shoe pinches. It i-s not '" modern " in any good sense to be flippant, impudent and immodest. It is only modern in the sense that when practised it makes money for a paper's proprietory at the expense of the mental gTowth of the public. There is no need in these days for papers to bo dull any more than it is necessary that they should be set and printed l by hand. But to argue from that to the support of all license and all invasion of private rights and liberties is a- palpable absurdity. Theoretically my eyes are mine to do with what i will; but that does not entitle mc to read other people's letters or to concern myself with their affairs. This is an ethical principle which half the papers of I London are now tacitly refusing to recogj nise. Anything that happens within the field of vision of a reporter is regarded as public property, provided only it possesses sufficient interest to entitle it to publication. And so long as this obliquity continues, just so long will the Press be unworthy of the fullest measure of honourable-minded men's anprov&l. There is no instance known to mc in which a corporate body can justifiably break canons submitted to by the individual. It is certain that companies are given to stealing in a delicate and insinuating manner; but even so nobody seriously maintains that it is not stealing. Similarly a newspaper has no more right to pry into my domestic affairs than has any private citizen, whose prying would probably be held to be some excuse for punching his head. I don't mean to say. of course, that newspapers are never to ask questions and obtain even the most delicate, information by open methods. What 1 hate in this London halfpenny Press is the sneaking of its head round doors, its mean eavesdropping, its low private detective work. It isn't dignified, and it certainly isn't clean. The only valid ground for it is, once more, that it Pays. Competition has. of course, made newspapers as much an entertainment as theatres. The average London daiiy paper no more pretends to give you a fairly complete synopsis of the world's events than a ballet at a, musichall undertakes to give you a complete expositon of the various styles of dfcineing. Iv each ca.se you get what is most in demand, and the managements are quite capable of stimulating the demand that is easiest to supply. Lastly there is the far more threatening prospect that with the Press of London iv a comparatively few hands the old ideals of fairness and the old contempt for private interest will give, place —as to some extent they have now—to a politic evasion of the discussion of any wrong that it is not a matter of business to criticise. Already one begin* to see all sorts of abuses referred , to in terms of gentle criticism that once would have been sledge-hammered out of existence. And if things are bad now, what wiii they be when they reflect views only palatable to a gigantic combination of interests? Altogether it seems to mc that the Press of London is not just now a thing to ceourage j one's optimism, either special or general. It is difficult to be enthusiastic either over what the public gets, or ever the public that likes to get it.