JOURNALISM.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19156, 12 November 1927, Page 15

JOURNALISM.

THE SECRETS OF POWER. J. A. Spender's Life, Journalism, and (A Review in the "New Statesman" of Mr Politics.) Since tho death of Mr Delane, of "The Times," nearly fifty years ago, Mr J. A. Spender is the only English journalist who has ever wielded a political influence comparable with his. It is possible, indeed, that in the decade 1904-1914 Spender's authority, though very different in form, was greater in effect than Delane's eyer was. But Delane, of course, had the enormous advantage of controlling tho greatest newspaper in the worldl and having no Party ties or obligations whatever, so that his influence remained much the same whichever Party was in power. The general policy of "The Times" in his day was to seek to express the trend of public opinion and, therefore, as a rule, to support the Government in power, whether it were headed by a Peel or a Gladstone or a Disraeli; but there was nothing to prevent that support being witndrawn at any moment, so that, apart from his owii undoubtedly remaikable talents, Delane- with the constant support of his proprietor, John Walter 111.—enjoyed a position of enormous strategic strength. Spender's accomplishment, from a purely technical journalistic point of view, has been a much greater one. The green "Westminster Gazette" had never more than a tiny circulation—the smallest perhaps of any well-estab-lished daily newspaper ill Great Uritain. In the hey-day of its authority the number of copies sold per diem did not reach 20,000. Yet tor many years it was unquestionably the most influential newspaper in Europe and the most widely quoted; and that influence it owed to tho 1200 words which Spender wrote —in seventy-five minutes —on its front pago every morning. Spender was not even a good editor. Hie confesses in this book that he al.vayi hated trying to "edit" other people's work and put it into shape; and the present writer can testify to his incapacity in this respect. If he liisliked tho tone of an article, or even sentence in it, he could not put it right with a slash here or a word there; he could only rewrite it all himself —or else throw it into the waste-paper basket. He had a real capacity, nowever, for gathering round him men who could write what he wanted without having to be tutored or edited, and in Geake, of the Liberal Publication Department, he found a coadjutor who was always able to provide him with the absolutely accurate information that he needed Spender himself had a wonderful memory, both for statistics and for the past sayings of politicians, but Geake was a walking encycloptedin on such questions and could always put his hand in an instant on the relevant quotation or the relevant . figure. As a result, the "Westminster" became a terror to its political opponents who might be faced at any moment in cold print with ten-year-old speeches which they had totally forgotten, or with official figures which blew their theories into smithereens. The "Westminster" was a wonderful newspaper in those days. Its technical efficiency from a political point of l view was beyond all emulation and has certainly never been surpassed. Beside it the "Thunderer" was a blunderer. It never made a mistake. And its almost appalling accuracy served as a foundation for the most sanely persuasive _ and essentially readable leading articles that any journalist has ever written. Spender, like Delane, thoroughly understood the value of what Sir Edward Cook has 'called the "economy of emphasis." It he had to defend some comparatively far-roach-ing, perhaps almost revolutionary, proposal, he always employed the mildest and most commonplace words in his vocabulary. "One of my rules," he writes, "was to make my language most moderate when my views were most extreme. Follow this and! you may earn a reputation for sobriety and moderation while steadily expounding the most subversive views." In this faculty Spender was the perfect journalistic counterpart of Mr Asquith, who in those same days could always make the fundamental changes which his Government proposed sound as if they were merely the outcome of common sense applied to principles of almost humdrum constitutionalism. The value of Spender to the great Asquith Government—for it was a great Government—it is hardly possible to over-estimate. He knew exactly how to talk to those sensible people who make —or in those days used to maker—public opinion. Without being a great editor he was a supremely fine leadter writer the most effective perhaps in the long history of English journalism. He succeeded in finding men who could make the right background for his articles; but his paper was essentially a one-man show. It could not .have lived' for a month without him. He had to be editor because the unique talent which he possessed could only be used effectively if it were joined with complete freedom and full responsibility. If there had been anyone to tell him—-wrongly-—that this or that sentence was dangerous, or that he ought not to write four leaders on the same subject on four successive days, he would probably have acquiesced and. been crippled. The highest sort of journalistic ability is almost always individualistic in this sense. It cannot be bought or controlled by millionaire proprietors, not because it is morally incorruptible, but simply because without independence it cannot be effective —it evaporates. This is a point which unfortunately has never even yet been fully understood, even by highly skilled newspaper proprietors, still less by the general public; and the result has been that one eminent editor after another has been turned out of his position. The three ablest Liberal editors of our generation—Spender, Massingham, and Gardiner—have all been let go by unwise proprietors, who did not understand that the character and influence of a paper is normally inseparable from the personality of the editor. This is so, of course, not always—not for example in the case of The Times" at the present moment—but very commonly. The question of "influence" is an extremely elusive and personal thing. Sir Edward Cook in his life of Delane related that a capitalist with large resources once asked an experienced editor wherein lay the secret of this elusive power. "I can see my way," he said, "to getting a large circulation, but how am I to get influence? Tell me that." The same question has certainly been asked by a good many other newspaper proprietors since then; but equally certainly they have not succeeded in obtaining any answer that satisfied them. For it is a noteworthy fact that—with a partial exception in the case of Northcliffe—not one of our great Press potentates of the twentieth century possesses, or has ever possessed, any appreciable political influence at all. They know how to get their news r papers read by the multitude, but they do not in the least know how to make their own political prognostications either feared or followed. Yet really there is no secret in this winning of influence. It is simply a question of gaining the respect of the "governing class," in the widest sense of that phrase, not only of Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers and politicians generally—and not at all of Dukes or Marquises or great "Captains of Industry" as such —but of Civil Servants and Labour leaders and

the politically-minded clergy of all atenomiuations, and tnoso otuer men of all Parties who debate and organise and "create" public opinion, and above all 01 other journalists. A journal which is taken seriously by the journalistic fraternity, even though its circulation does not reach lour ligures, may easily be far more "influential'' in fact tliau a popular paper witn two iniliioij readers. Any proprietor who wants political iuliueuce can probably get it, if ho knows how to choose his men, but he must be prepared to make circulation a secondary consideration. It may not be impossible to appeal to the masses and the classes at one and the same time, but no one has yot succeeded in doing it. To bo politically influential in journalism you must be consistently serious without being dull, you must bo tearless and indepomJout, you must have a detinito point of view" running through the whole of the paper, you must eschew alj the more obvious forms of partisanship, and, above all, everything that you write must Ite backed by real and accurate knowledge. Also you must havo at least one or two men who can really write. It is no use satisfying only a few of these conditions, they niust all bo satisfied; and even when they are all satisfied they may fail of their duo effect if the news editor is allowed to play higli-jinks in the lighter news columns with a view to increasing circulation. Spender, Delano, Mnssingham, Steed, and Gardliner ill combination would be unable to produce a powerful political newspaper if opposite, or oven on the back of, their splendid leader page there were a heavy headlino enquiring, "Do Flappers Flap Too Much?" Spender recognised all this, and) deliberately—to the constant despair, as he tells us, of his circulation manager —sacrificed the commercial prospects of the "Westminster" to what he very rightly regarded as its proper purpose, the work which he or all men was uniquely qualified to do. And as long as its memory lives the old green "Westminster Gazette" will remain the prime classical example of what political journalism should be. In the role which it assumed it has never been equalled, and almost certainly uow never will be. How and why it attained its extraordinary position is sufficiently explained! in these intensely interesting volumes. We have no space here for further description, and it must suffice briefly to say that its success was due firstly to a systematic and immense accumulation of accurate first-hand information, and secondly to .the ability of the editor and his staff to present that information in a. singularly simple and effective fornix crushing!}', but always without rancour and almost always without offering any excuse for offence. On the general subject of political journalism Mr Spender has naturally many very interesting things to say. He has always maintained a very high conception of the dignity and responsibility of the profession, and has tully justified that conception by his own career. He has justified! also, in just the same way, his conviction that political journalists ought not to accept honours at the hands of politicians; for, if they do, they can hardly hope, subsequently, to escape an accusation either of ingratitudo or of servility, and thereby weaken their own position—which it is their first duty to maintain: Oh the purely technical side of his profession also Mr Spender, as might bo supposed, is able to offer comments and advice f which every journalist should read. Thus: It is positively a vice to bring a prepared mind to this kind of writing (i.e., leading articles), anil if any journalist tells you that he knows what he is going to write about, tomorrow, you may have serious doubts about his capacity for writing it Never to do to-day what you can put off till to-morrow, and never to think to-day of what you may have to write to-morrow, are the first rules of safety, and sanity in this profession. Perhaps only a working journalist can realise the profound truth of these observations. News has been received in Wellington that the well-known house of John Murray has accepted for publication, the book of memoirs written by Mr Justico Alpers. The book is to be called "Cheerful Yesterdays," and is a racy' and vivid account of 60 years of the author's career. It is more, however, than tho romance' of the. rise of little Danish boy," of. eight years of age, to the high position or one of His Majesty's Supremo Court Judges. It is a cross section of the life and growth of New Zealand for half a century. The many-sidedness of the author's mind, his learning, his wit, and his warm humanity, are revealed in the memoirs', and mark a high achievement in self portraiture. Experiences in journalism, teaching an dtho Bar are recounted with many original stories, and illustrative anecdotes. The legal stories are fresh and authentic, and there is much that is fascinating in the stories of the ear«f beginnings of Canterbury College. In addition to the ordinary publication, a limited autographed edition will be issued. Since there is only one George Moore, the "Newspaper World" says, and since he is an infrequent contributor to "Correspondence" in the newspapers, his letter—and particularly his subject, "Misuse of French," in a recent "Times Literary Supplement' is all tho more significant, and should have the attention of journalists. "Language is .to the writer what marble is to the sculptor," writes Mr Moore, in giving examples of the. increasing use of French words, "and we should preserve our language from adulteration and continue to check the word 'resumd' when it comes to the end of the pen, and write 'summary instead, 'inclination' instead of penchant,' 'instinct' or 'intuition' instead of 'flair,' 'taking steps' instead of 'demarche.' Of late years any French word, however feeble and ridiculous, supplants the English equivalent. The word 'intrigue' has become a sort of fetish, a sacred ape. worshipped for itself alone. 'Puzzled' or 'inveigled' would supply the same meaning.'' Mr Arnold Bennett, in his "Evening Standard" "Books and Persons" page, expressed pleasure recently, not merely because Blake was at last being "lifted into his right place," but because some of the commentators have remembered Mrs Blake. "I like to think," he said, "of this transcendent genius working quietly and unappreciated as a draughtsman, engraver, and printer, perfectly content in the society of nis marvellous wife who helped him in the craftsmanship to the best of her ability. The attentive woman marred sundry copies of his books by her imperfect sense of colour. but what matter. No creative artist ever had a more consummate helpmeet."