“THE HOWIE JOURNAL,” THE “HERALD,” AND THE “L.V. GAZETTE.”

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, 4 May 1911, Page 20

“THE HOWIE JOURNAL,” THE “HERALD,” AND THE “L.V. GAZETTE.”

THE FINE ART OF MISREPRESENTATION. THE “JOURNAL” TAKES THE CAKE WITH EASE. We are reminded of the storv of the had hoys who were striving to see who could tell the tallest story, when a certain bishop strolled along and was awarded the cake, as the champion liar, for saying that he had :iever told an untruth, by the attitude of the “Home Journal” towards this paper. In its latest issue, it devotes a by no means inconsiderable portion of its space to the L’censed Victuallers’ Gazette, which it is evidently reading to some purpose. The friend who so kindly forwarded his copy (supplied “Free, gratis and for nothing” as the Wowserite has it), to us last month, is anxious that we should not miss the good things that are going in Mr. Smallfield’s paper, and so he sends the May issue along, with one or two notes that are decidedly interesting. He asks, for instance, what he has done that “Such a bucketful of spitefulness” should be “emptied at his door,” and he wants to know whether he cannot “proceed against the Postmaster-General for distributing libellous matter through the Post Office?” He marks several references to ourselves in the paper, and asks how we “like our gruel?” Then he adds: “Tell the Home Journal man to send his bally paper to Hong Kong; I don’t want it.” * * * THE HOME JOURNAL’S ATTITUDE. The first thing that strikes us about the “Home Journal” is its manners which are decidedly bad- Like its morals (if it has any which we seriously doubt), they need mending very badly, before the “Journal” can hope to 'begin to live up to the lofty standard it demands from the public and its opponents. Tn its references to this journal, it displays not a little ingenuity in evading the truth, and in misrepresenting the attitude of the “Gazette.” The fact that the Journal’s Editor is, by courtesy, addressed as “Reverend” (he is “by way of being A Clerk in Holy Orders”), would lead the average man to suppose that the Fountains of Truth and Justice would flow unimpaired through the pages of the “Home Journal,” and that the waters of both would not be fouled or contaminated by the introduction of such slimy matters as the Squid exudes, when an enemy is on its track, and it is in danger of capture. The Reverend Editor of the “Home Journal” is, however, such an adept in the fine art of misrepresentation, that it would seem -inlpossiblefor him to state a case fairly, squarely, and honourably, where his

opponents are concerned. His views have so decided a bias against Jibe trade this journal has the honour to represent, that he is neither careful to tell the truth in stating his objections to its criticism nor concerned to do justice to the points it most certainly has made against both the “Herald” and the “Home Journal.” Readers of this journal may remember that, on March 16th, we took the “Herald” to task (not as the “Home Journal” untruthfully asserts for publishing a “contributed review of Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet”), for having “permitted the Revd- P. S. Smallfield. the Editor of the Prohibitionist ‘Home Journal’ to review” that namphlet in its columns,” which is a very different thing. The “Home Journal” chooses to regard th s as an attempt to deny to the “Herald” the right to admit ‘evidence on 'both sides of a social question.” To show how much truth there is in the implica-

tion, we re-publish the paragraph to which the Home Journal has taken exception. » * » THE “HERALD’S” BLUNDER. “ The ‘New Zealand Herald’ (says J he paragraph'in question) has hitherto enjoyed the reputation of being a fair-minded journal. The fact that it permitted the Revd. P- S. Smallfield, the Editor of the Prohibitionist “Home Journal” to review Professor Salmond’s (pamphlet, “Prohibition A Blunder,” shows (just as straws indiea'e the direction of the wind), that the day in which it could be said to have had the courage of its opinions has fled. It has no opinions worth holding, except that the getting of money is the prime end of h newspaper’s existence. On the face of things, it would appear to have invit-

ed Mr. Smallfield to review the Salmond pamphlet with the idea of coercing the trade —always a prolific source o: profit to its proprietary. The only answer to such a situation would be for every ‘Herald’ advertiser, interested in the Trade, to withdraw his advertisement. Some people can only he reached through the pockets. The ‘Herald’ proprietary seemingly belongs to that class. It is doubtful if there is another paper in Australasia, the Editor of which would have acted more indiscreetly than the ‘Herald’ man has done in requesting, or permitting, a Prohibi ionist Editor, to review a pamphlet a med at the prohibition movement. But the ‘Herald’ is so manifestly lacking in brains, that its Editor might well have felt the task of reviewing Professor-Salmond’s pamphlet was altogether beyond him. And so, poor fellow, he is not without his excuses.’

WHERE THE “HERALD” ERRED. It should be remembered that the “Herald” did not review the pamphlet in question. It certainly published a leading article dealing with the questions raised by Professor Salmond, but iis conclusions were only of the most general character, and, apparently, the paper itself was unprepared to pass judgment upon the Professor’s pamphlet, as (for instance) the “Otago Daily Times” had done. Professor Salmond’s side of the questions handled by Mr. Smallfield was never properly presented in the “Herald,” and to give the “Home Journal” Editor the opportunity, not only of stating Professor Salmond’s but of condemning it also, must appear to every fair-minded man as a very unjust misuse of the Herald Editor’s powers. It was, moreover, bad journalism. ‘We can hardly conceive of

any other independent journal, claiming to represent the public interest, failing in the way the “Herald” failed. Nor can we (imagine any journal that would have the temerity to misrepresent the position as between this journal’s contentions and the ‘Herald,’ after the fashion Mr. Smallfield’s journal has done. Surely it is a proof of the weakness of the cause the reverend gentleman champions, that he should find himself under the necessity of continually misrepresenting the sayings and doings of his opponents. Is it the reverend gentleman’s Christianity, or the lack of it, that causes him to do this sort of thing?