STATESMEN AND THE PRESS.
NONE felt a stronger sense of indignation than we did at the violent, sensational, and irresponsible language used by several popular newspapers in regard to the alleged attitude of the British Government towards the Colonial Premiers. As journalists, we felt that such expressions as ' Collapse of the Conference,' The Banged Door,' and so forth were not only gross misrepresenta- tions of the actual situation, but were calculated to do an enormous amount of harm to the higher Imperial interests. Those who used such expressions, and lent themselves to attempts to represent the Government of the Mother- country as showing neglect of, or even hostility to, the daughter-States, in our opinion deserve the censure of self- respecting and right-thinking men of all parties. Mischief- making of that kind, whether in the interests of sensational journalism or of unbridled political partisanship, is a serious offence against the nation and the Empire.
Feeling as we did, we should have welcomed a grave reproof of such tactics from some responsible statesman or leader of public opinion outside the journalistic world, and therefore incapable of being accused of trade rivalry. As Unionists, we should naturally have preferred to see such a reproof come from Mr. Balfour, Lord Lansdowne, or some other acknowledged Unionist leader. In the political world such offences as those of which we are complaining are most effectively reproved by men of the same political school as the offenders. If, however, the Unionist leaders were unhappily not alive to the necessity for such censure, then we should have liked to see the reproof come from statesmen of the standing of the Prime Minister, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Asquith, Mr. John Morley, or Mr. Haldane, men who could not possibly be accused of ever having taken advantage of the arts of sensationalism and self-advertisement to further their personal ambitions. When, however, the reproof was administered, not by a statesman of this standing, but by Mr. Winston Churchill, we felt that little or nothing would be accomplished in the interests of political morality. It was obvious that the reprover of sensationalism and reckless irresponsibility in the Presii was himself too open to the accusation which Pope levelled against Addison when he added to the description of his rival the famous line :- " And hates for arts that caused himself to rise."
We have no desire to make any general attack upon Mr. Winston Churchill, or to treat him as the " awful warning " of party politics. We recognise his energy and capacity both as a Parliamentary speaker and as an administrator, and we do not doubt that he may do very useful work for his country. Again, we have not a word to say against his change of political views. We are sure that his Free- trade convictions are genuinely held, and we make no complaint that he, a young and ambitious politician, gave ground for the assumption that he yielded to the temptation to leave his own party and to join the Free-traders rather than undertake the difficult and apparently—though, as we believe, only apparently— hopeless task of reconverting the Unionist Party to Free- trade. That such a course, involving as it did temporary, and conceivably permanent, retirement from the House of Commons, when contrasted with the alternative of quick promotion among the Liberals, offered little attraction to a politician of Mr. Winston Churchill's temperament can be no subject of wonder. In any case, holding the views he held, and honestly held, on the Fiscal question, there was nothing illegitimate, if something a little unheroic, in the decision he came to. What made it in every sense undesirable that Mr. Winston Churchill should express the disapproval felt by the better and more responsible part of the nation in regard to the newspaper utterances in question was not his change of party, but the fact that during the earlier part of his career he habitually bad recourse to violent and sensational language, and that he not merely used violent language, but often also showed an entire want of responsibility as to the effect of his words. Just as the sensational newspaper does not care what the ultimate consequence and effect of its headlines or the phrases in its leading articles may be so long as they seize the mind of its readers and violently concen- trate attention on itself, so Mr. Winston Churchill in the speeches which helped to bring him into prominence showed that he cared far more for self-advertisement and for giving himself prominence in the public eye than for helping to create a sane and reasonable public opinion on the questions with which be was dealing. We do net, of course, object to a politician, young or old, holding his own views strongly or expressing them strongly, and we are perfectly willing to allow a very large amount of latitude of language to those engaged in a fierce political struggle. What we object to, both in statesmen and in news- papers, is irresponsibility of attitude and carelessness as to the effect of the language used so long as through its sensationalism it concentrates public attention upon the politician or the newspaper. To condemn the injury to the public welfare inflicted in one case, but to leave the other unnoticed, would be most unjust.
It is not necessary to refer in detail to the sensa- tionalism and irresponsibility lately displayed by the popular Unionist newspapers with which we are dealing. They are fresh in men's minds. Again, we do not wish to quote any of the violent language used by Mr. Winston Churchill four or five years ago. It is sufficient to say that a reference to a collection of some of the sensational and irresponsible things said by him, which is to be found in a letter by Mr. Crouch Batchelor published in Tuesday's Daily Mail, will show that we have not exaggerated. The passages about those whom Mr. Winston Churchill called "rebels and Pro-Boers" furnish the clearest signs of that sensationalism and irresponsibility which he lately con- demned so strongly. It is difficult to read those passages and not to feel that if Mr. Winston Churchill had not been a Free-trader and had remained a Unionist he would have been one of the chief exponents of the " banged- door" school.
As journalists, we feel that the moral of the whole incident is this. It is quite right that our statesmen should, when occasion offers, censure particular organs of public opinion for sensationalism and irresponsibility, but the statesmen who undertake'to bestow such censure should be those who have not themselves yielded, and yielded very recently, to the strong temptation which is always assailing both journalists and politicians to gain notoriety anaattract attention by violence of language and recklessness as to the consequences of such language. As newspaper men, very proud of our calling, and convinced that with all its faults the Press may and does play a very noble and very useful part in public life, and convinced also that as a whole editors and leader-writers and journalists generally are quite as willing to sacrifice their personal interests to the public good as are the politicians, we yet feel that one of the greatest and most growing dangers in the State is the note of sensationalism and irresponsibility which has of late invaded the Press. Most strongly do we desire that these tendencies shall be held in check, and we should be the first, therefore, to welcome a real effort to control them made by our leading statesmen. The statesman who desires to reprove the Press must, however, be in the position described by Wordsworth :— " Who therefore does not stoop nor lie in wait For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state ; Whom they must follow ; on whose head must fall, Like showers of manna, if they come at all."
Such a man will have every right to condemn the excesses of the Press, and in so doing will receive the support not only of the more responsible journalists, but also of all right-thinking men throughout the nation. Those who have not shown reticence, a scrupulous sense of respon- sibility, and a willingness to sacrifice personal ambition to, a lofty political standard, but instead are actual exponents of sensationalism and irresponsibility, can only incur a, double condemnation when they censure others for em. ploying weapons of which their own armouries are full.'
Previous page
