THE ETHICS OF JOURNALISM
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] Sin,—It is to be hoped that in the discussion of the important issue, the publication of " betting tips," the main questions of journalistic ethics may not be forgotten. In forming a judgment on these questions it is possible that, as a corre- spondent suggests, the sense of humour may be an advantage; but it is of more importance to be able to free one's mind from cant and look facts in the face. The newspapers set them- selves up as censors of morals, guardians of the public welfare, protectors of the national honour. They ought to be beyond reproach ; the majority are supporting themselves or amassing wealth by aiding and encouraging the army of adventurers which by one or another cynical dodge preys upon the simple public. This is the simple truth ; the plea that papers must exist deserves, as you remark, only the old answer. You have allowed Dr. David Walsh and myself to write in your columns upon the attitude of the bulk of the newspaper Press towards medical quackery. You have allowed us to point out that fraudulent medical practice, and the traffic in " secret " remedies, form one of the greatest evils afflicting the poor and credulous classes. The conduct of the Press in this connexion constitutes one of the greatest scandals of the present day. The Spectator has shown that it recognises this fact. Without writing one word about it, the Spectator has quietly closed its columns to quack advertisements,—an action no doubt involving a loss of income. The Spectator was the only paper that reviewed at length the book on "Secret Remedies," the British Medical Association's authoritative exposure of the character of the quack medicine trade. This book was left unnoticed by the vast majority of London and provincial papers, whilst a considerable number, including those whose pages are filled with quack advertisements—papers, more- over, that circulate mostly among the poorer classes—not only ignored a subject so important to their readers, whose interests they loudly profess to have at -heart ; they refused even to publish an advertisement of the book through which the wretched victims of quackery might perchance have gained the knowledge they so sadly lacked. "This," as the British Medical Journal remarked, " is not an incident of which the Press can feel proud."
During the thirty years I have given attention to the question I have very rarely succeeded in getting a place in a newspaper for any communication, however temperately worded, on the subject of quackery. In late years, in your medical contemporaries, and recently in addresses before branches of the British Medical Association, I have insisted upon the fact that the newspaper Press must be held most responsible for the rapid growth of this shameful trade until now, when it has developed into an evil of stupendous extent. It is by the aid of newspaper advertisements that quackery flourishes. Newspapers in this connexion may be divided into several classes. There are some that reject fraudulent adver- tisements, some that insert them innocently, some that insert them carelessly, and many more that insert them knowingly. The number of those least blameworthy has diminished in late years. This is perhaps due to the fact that many have been converted into companies, which, as corporations intent upon money-making, are capable of conduct in business which would be repugnant to shareholders if acting individually for themselves. This change in the management of papers has led to the stultification of many editors. They have continued on occasion to denounce quackery whilst every kind of quack advertisement was being published in their own pages. I have in my possession a number of leading articles exposing quackery in general and single practitioners in particular, and a large collection of puffs of the same quackery from the same papers. As one example out of many, I may refer to an article in one of the foremost papers of the day dealing with the injury to the national health arising from the use of quack medicines. It referred to the harm done by sham " tonics " containing alcohol and narcotics, and described the deadly results that follow reliance upon worthless " secret" remedies when organic disease exists. It exemplified this by describing a case o€ gastric ulcer brought to 4 mortal phase
whilst reliance was being placed on an " indigestion cure" containing no medicinal agent whatever, except a coarse, cheap purgative. From this same paper I have preserved an enormous advertisement of an " indigestion cure " the character of which was more than once exposed in the High Courts. Examining a file of this paper, I found that it contained daily quack advertisements up to the value of at least £200, represent.. ing an income of £50,000 a year from this foully tainted source, The conduct of many papers has been the same in relation with commercial dishonesty. Editorial articles have appeared, often in papers standing in the front rank, elaborately exposing vulgar systems of swindling carried on by dis- reputable City firms, whilst advertisements of the same firms have been continually appearing in the same pages. Adver- tisements of this kind may be frequently found in scores of leading papers throughout the country. They cost many thousands of pounds,—a measure of the profits made by their authors. The character of the advertisements, as the editorials I allude to point out, is always unmistakable by all save the simpletons for whom the trap is laid ; it could not
be mistaken by astute newspaper managers, who thus do not scruple to take part in plundering, and perhaps ruining, numbers of poor foolish and confiding people. The editors of some of these papers must be in a position of terrible discomfort and humiliation. Whilst striving to do their duty
they witness helplessly the sinister game of their employers. They must feel that whilst their utterances make evident their own knowledge, their writings can only help to confuse the ingenuous reader, and lead him to look upon all the advertisements in such a high-toned paper as above suspicion. I believe that it is within the power of the Spectator to start a movement which might put an end to the progressive degradation of the newspaper Press ; this would constitute a real service to the State.—I am, Sir, &c.,
HENRY SEWIEE.,
The Old Rosery, Earlswood Common, Surrey.
P.S.—The following excerpt from a report in the Medical Press of to-day (June 8th) seems very much to the point.
Perhaps it is worth adding to my letter:— "In sentencing, at the Central Criminal Court, a sot of rogues for combining to obtain money by false pretences, the Judge said he would like to discharge the prisoners, and order the papers which inserted the advertisements to pay the whole of the costs of the prosecution. These advertisements were read carefully before they were published, and no person of the kind of intelligence one attributed to people connected with papers could read these advertisements and not see what was the pur- port of them. The advertisements were published in papers -which were read by simple people, and these were the parties primarily responsible for any fraud committed on the public.' " [As journalists we feel deeply the aspersions upon our profession made in the above letter. It is only fair to point out, however, and we are glad to be able to do so, that in
this respect things are distinctly better than they were thirty or forty years ago. The advertisements of those times were of an infinitely lower character. We ought to add that, though we feel we have no right to refuse our correspondent's letter, we do not desire to take up a censorious attitude on this matter. In the first place, it is very much easier for a paper like the Spectator to maintain a high line about advertisements than for the daily papers. Again, a distinction ought to be drawn between harmless patent remedies of the soap and paraffin order which profess to alleviate minor ailments, and the cruel and lying offers to cure diseases such as cancer and consumption. At any rate, this is not the matter on which we are now engaged. We are dealing with a much narrower and plainer point,—that of cant and hypocrisy in a particular case. We are not claiming superior virtue for ourselves, or claiming the right to enforce a rigid Puritanical standard upon our contemporaries. All we say is that cant and self-righteousness carried to the point we have instanced ought to be denounced by all good citizens. Here in reality there is universal agreement. The application, however, is sometimes a little painful.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
