The Dominion. TUESDAY DECEMBER 24, 1912 LORD NORTHCLIFFE AND THE PRESS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1631, 24 December 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY DECEMBER 24, 1912 LORD NORTHCLIFFE AND THE PRESS.

When Lord Northcliffe secured a large share in the direction of the London Times, there was discernible in every newspaper comment upon the reconstruction (at least so far as our reading went) a trace_ of anxiety as to the result. Radicals like Mr.' ' J. K. Spender, of the Westminster Gazette, and Mr. Massinqham, of The Nation, were as well aware as, say, Mr. St. Loe Strachey, of The Spectator, of the importance to England and English journalism of the perfect continuity of The Times tradition that tho late editor, Mr. Buckle, had upheld bo worthily. And so, when Lord Northcliffe, the, author of tho Daily Mail, and the King of irresponsibility and pure commercialism in newspaper enterprise, brought his millions and his hustling methods into The Times Boardroom, the best journalists were naturally anxious. A few months ago Mr. Buckle was replaced by an able journalist wh'o had been one of the many right hands of Lord Northcliffe on the Mail. Journalists have been awaiting developments, and a remarkable development has come in tho shape of Mr. Garvin's sensational attack on the Haumsworth press recorded in one of yesterday's cable messages. Lord Northcliffe has bought enormous power by his millions and his methods, but Mr. Garvin's brains and energy have given him a true authority that will more .than balance tho Harms worth purse. Mr. Garvin, who is the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, and of the Observer, has been far more than an uncommonly able Unionist publicist: it has been evident since 1909 that he him had a una re in tho direction of Unionist policy. His

onslaught upon Lord Northcliffe will accordingly carry much weight with Unionists. The immediate cause of his declaration of war is the Mail's and Times's censuro of Mr. Bonar Law's re-statement of the Unionist policy regarding Tariff Reform. He attributes tho attitude of the two papers to Lord North-cliffe-'s "prodigious business commitments, and he goes on to say what others have said j before him, but what it has long needed some Unionist of tho highest authority to say.' And what no says of Lord Northcliffe is this: that "though he has no time for the consecutive study of politics, yet he is behind tho national scenes, exercising an irresponsible despotism .which no sane society would allow any man to possess." Mr. Garvin also condemns the Harmsworth press trust as a worse thing than any meat trust.

A poll of the responsible journalists of the Empire would find an overwhelming declaration in favour of Mr. Garvin's view. It would be an exaggeration to say, in tho presence of such widely-influential journals as the Manchester Guardian, the Daily News, tho Westminster Gazette, _ and The Nation, on tho side, and such good honest Unionist papers as the Morning Post, the Pall' Mall, the Spectator, and the Scotsman, not to mention the Observer, that the Harmsworths have collared the British press. Yet the influence of tho Harmsworth press must be enormous. A few weeks ago the Daily Telegraph printed on three consecutive days three full-page advertisements relating to the circulation of three of the Harjisworth London dailies—the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, and the Evening News— and the day-by-day sales over a period of eight months showed that the daily sale of the three journals amounted to 2,250,000 copies. In addition to its metropolitan interest, the Harmsworth combination owns or controls many important provincial papers, and speaks to the public also through a number of cheap and very attractive monthly magazines. Lord Northcliffe has thus an audience greater even than that of the only other single man with whom he can be compared— that conscienceless demagogue, Mr. W. R. Hearst, of New York. _ In the hands of an honest and patriotic man, interested only in using his great voice for tho dissemination of truth and the recommendation of opinions which might be wrong, but would'yet be honest, the power exercised by Lord Northcliffe could be. made of incalculable value to the nation/ We are afraid it as misused : perhaps not even an archangel- could be .trusted with siich wealth and power. But we have hitherto felt j sure, and we still, feel hopeful, that The Times is uncon-

taminatod. Its comment upon Me. Bonak Law's speech was good and timely; but, doubtless Mn. Garvin, who is as observant and penetrating; a student and writer as ne is .vigorous and influential, has reason to believe that The Times under Me. Kennedy Robinson, is becoming, or about to become,, the organ of Lord Northcliffe's interests. It would be pleasant to know that Mr. Garvin is wrong so far as The Times is Nobody could rejoice, more, if The^Eiiiies ...remained.spot-' less and national, though Conservative, than the loaders of British Radicalism. Amongst statesmen, Lord Moeley and Me. Asquith, amongst journalists Mr. Spender, Me. C. P. Scott, and almost anyone of them, would see much of their Radicalism beaten rather than see The Times cease to bo a national newspaper and a national institution.

In the meantime, whatever Mr. Garvin may reserve in his own mind behind his attack, his attack upon the Harmsavorth method and tho Harmsworth monopoly is to be welcomed. Arid we can say this with the greater pleasure, because those whom the Daily Mail and The Times are normally opposing are the guardians of those ideas which,we feel sure aro injurious to the kingdom. The Harms worth publications have many good points, but they have done much harm to British civilisation. On occasion they can reach a good height, but there is no depth to which they are not ready tp descend when the descent pays. Some people may still remember the publication in Answers, to the. accompaniment of half-a-page of applause m the Daily Mail, of the life story of the wretched woman involved in the Crippen murder. The Harmsworth method has been described in these terms: "They ,[two particular "sensations" of the weekj represent so much saleable space, good for circulation and advertisement. No other aim, good or bad, belongs to them. In this process their conductors may engage writers, investigators, theorists, critics of average honesty and and no more than the average bias. But their main appeal is to masses of easily moved imaginations, and illfurnished minds. We cannot say that the masses that read the Daily Mail are a bit worse than tho masses that read the rank dishonesty and folly of the Radical halfpenny press. But Lord Northcliffe has helped the Radical masses by cultivating folly and encouraging error and ignorance in the greater mass, which is his own clientele. When Lord Northcliffe allows his publications to appeal to the rude, savage, and uncivilised side of the public, _ one can only deeply regret his inability to resist exploiting tho barbarians; it is a more serious thing, at this particular stage of political and international (development, that any powerful section of the British press should oome under the domination of a man who. understands money and understands little else, and Mr. Garvin has done good service in striking a blow against a real public evil, as all press trusts must be. •