“WE”:

Otago Witness, Issue 3112, 5 November 1913, Page 77

“WE”:

EDITORIAL HUMOURS AND PRONOUNCEMENTS. .. o(Copyright.) Once upon a time newspapers had no leading articles. Later no newspaper was thought complete without one. Nowadays a few journals, greatly daring, have dis pensed with “leaders” and are news purveyors pure and simple. In any case the modern tendency is to curtail the length and decrease the number of leading articles, but the ablest journalists believe that the day when the “leader”, is the exception rather than the rule is a very long way off. Certainly the newspapers whose leading articles are made an important, feature are still among the most prosperous and the most respected in this country.

The Morning Chronicle is credited with, being the first British newspaper -to contain a leader. It was a very short one, appearing on May 12, 1791, and it stated that “the great and firm body t>f the Whigs of England, true to their principles, have decided on the dispute between Mr Fox and Mr Burke, in favour of Mr Fox, as the representative of the pure doctrine of Whiggery.” It was not long before most of the newspapers began to lead their pages with articles expressing editorial opinion on the political and social questions of the day. In length they increased from paragraphs to the “threedeckers” with which we are still familiar; and in tone they ranged from lofty idealism to pronouncements, especially as betweerf rival journals, of the Eatanswill Gazette type satirised by Dickens. EDITORIAL INFLUENCE. All along the line, however, the editorial “we” has represented power and considered opinion. The expression of editorial ideas in the millions of leading articles which have seen the light since the first one was printed has had an incalculable effect on our history. As Lord Morlev, himself once a distinguished journalist, bas said, “We have now in England, in journalism of the highest kind, a vivacity, an industry, and a conscientiousness which has never before been seen. I know very well what journalism is. I began a good many years ago by teaching Ix>rd Palmerston and Mr Disraeli and Mr Gladstone the arts of statesmanship in the columns of important prints. As Thackeray said of that band of which I was a humble member: ‘Wo taught painters how to paint, poets how to write, and ladies of the ballet how to pirouette.’ ” And “we” go on teaching the world how to wag with as great an effect as ever —a patent fact to anyone who has ever taken the trouble to note, say, the sequel to a vigorous and surprising editorial pronouncement in a prominent journal on some great public ouestion. The leading article may bo long or it may be short, but it has its effect. Indeed, one of the briefest editorials which ever appeared had an enormous effect. It was written by William North, who had instructions to combine brevity with wit and power in an article with reference to the great struggle over the liquor laws in the State of New York. North wrote just one sentence: “We had far rather see the whole world get drunk of its own free will than one man kept sober bv compulsion.’’ For that North was paid £4 —and lie deserve dit, for the article attracted the widest interest. Had it been

dealt with according to modern methods it would have been of still more striking value; a modern editor would have used a column of space for it and have placed the sentence in the centre of the otherwise

blank column. There would have been no missing it. DOUBLE DUTCH. That idea is presented to epigrammatic journalists for utilisation in times of pressure. Such a method is much better than that adopted by an editor who had insufficient time to write his leading article before the paper went to press, but who saved the situation by cutting out an editorial from The Thunderer, and using it in his own columns with this short preface: “What does The Times mean by this ?” A still more humorous way out of a difficulty was found by the Leicester Herald, "when it was under the editorship of Sir George Phillips. One ■day, just at the moment the paper should have gone to press, the printers reported that they were a column short. There was no time to write Chat column, and no time to get it into type even had it been written. So a column of “pie”— type thrown together anyhow for purposes of resorting—-was lifted into the vacant space, and it appeared in that issue under the heading of “The Dutch Mail,” with a brief explanatory ( !) paragraph stating that the despatch was printed in the original language, time not permitting the work of translation. Though many Dutchmen endeavoured to make sense of that column, none of them ever succeeded. One man kept the paper for over 50 years in the hope that one day he would be able to obtain a translation. He, too, was. disappointed. It is obvious that the men who represent the editorial “we” must write with some sense of their responsibility, thinking of how by the use of a drop of ink they may make “countless millions think.” Despite what the scoffer says, it must bo written that newspaper editors as a rule are conscientious as well as clever. Sometimes they may write against their convictions, but not often. Even supposing they do, it has to be remembered that they are not expressing their opinions, but those for which the paper stands. Apart from that, however, newspaper proprietors find that it does not pay to employ editors whose political or religious opinions are at variance with those of the paper. Such men do not write so as to carry conviction. Again, none know better than journalists themselves how .sadly great is the number of men who, rather than write that with which they do not agree, have given up fame, power, and fortune. The public, for these and otherreasons, may therefore feel fairly well assured that what “we” say is carefully considered and conscientious opinion. “WE’S” DUTIES. That opinion has to be pretty extensive, too. As the editor of the Centre News of Oklahoma said in one issue of his paper; “All that a fellow has to do to be an editor is to be able to write poems, discuss the tariff and money questions, umpire a baseball game, report a -wedding, saw wood, describe a fire so that readers will shed their wraps, make one dollar do the work of ten, shine at a dance, measure calico, abuse the liquor habit, test whisky, subscribe to charities, attack free silver, go without meals, sneer at snobbery, wear diamonds, invent advertisements, overlook scandal, appraise babies, minister to the afflicted, fight to a finish, set type, mould opinions, sweep the office, and stand in with everybody and everything.” There’s a sting in the last sentence which is reminiscent of the pronouncement of the editor of a Kansas paper who in his valedictory stated: “The undersigned retires from the paper business with the conviction that all is vanity. Prom the hour this paper was started to the present time he has been solicited to lie upon every given subject, and can’t remember having told a wholesome truth without diminishing his subscription list or making an enemy. Under these circumstances of trial, and having a thorough contempt of himself, he retires from this field in order to recruit his moral constitution. We bid you all adieu, with all our evil thoughts cast aside.”

SINGULAR OR PLURAL. “We” is plural and, as the present writer has pointed out, does not necessarily represent an individual opinion. This adds to the. responsibility of editorial writers in more ways than one. It increases the risks of ambiguity, as, for instance, in the case of the well-known “IcadeV” in an important newspaper which commenced, “We ate over a million bottles of pickles last year.” Had that applied to the editorial “we” only, the statement was one quite sufficiently surprising. But there is at least one instance written in the plural. It appeared in a South African pa per, and ran thus: — “We have been and gone and done it, and now depart for that period prescribed by custom wherein to repent at leisure of our rash act. Whether ‘we’ are doubled or halved time alone will show, but as the editorial ‘-we’ is no longer singular, and a plural ‘we’ necessitates increased office expenses, will subscribers and advertisers please take the hint?” That was the editor’s way of announcing to his readers that he had got married.