A QUESTION OF TASTE AND NEWSPAPER ETIQUETTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2000, 8 February 1907, Page 2

A QUESTION OF TASTE AND NEWSPAPER ETIQUETTE.

Our evening contcniporary’s issue of yesterday contained the folowing paragraph: “In reference to the controversy as to despatch obtained by steamers at this and other ports, a correspondent sends us a statement showing that in May, 1900, there were handled in twelve days at Lyttelton 231,619 carcases of mutton, in addition to 904 quarters of beef and sundries. The Gothic and Afric were loaded with 187,946 carcases in 91 days, on one day, Saturday, no fewer than 26,000 carcases’ being put into the Afric.” We republish this because the “controversy” lias taken place in our columns, and readers of the paragraph where it first appeared will not know its purport unless they have read that “controversy.” For that reason there is an unwritten rule observed by all respectable journals that replies or references to controversies taking place, or that have taken place, in another journal cannot be admitted unless the writer who opens the controversy submits his first contribution to both papers simultaneously. This very necessary rule appears to be “not understood in Gladstone Road, Gisborne, and journalistic etiquette apparently cannot be enforced without special legislation. If our contemporary had been manly enough to acknowledge the source of the controversy and explain to its readers the necessity fciv quoting the •figures, its offence would be somewhat lessened; but while it tries hypocritically to ignore the existence of this journal, it is not above trying in this unpardonable way to make capital for itself out of what appears in our columns. If we bad no respect for tlie traditions and usages of journalism which always ensure personal friendliness when properly observed, we would hove taken no notice of this matter, for it matters not one jot seeing that" nearly every reader of that paragraph had already read what led up *«’lt in uni’ columns; but there is a . " -*■ stake for which we have principle a. do not want some respect, a pel we to be dragged into a compio-. . breach of that principle in order to protect ourselves against plagiarism of this description, therefore we sincerely hope the occasion will not recur for us to complain again.