A CHAT WITH THE PUBLIC.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2109, 1 October 1885, Page 2

A CHAT WITH THE PUBLIC.

We commend the following article from the Evening Press to our readers:—Some people have queer notions about journalism, especially about that important branch of it which iB connected with public correspondence. It is a common impression that the correspondence columns of a newspaper are editorially controlled as much as the leading columns; and that nothing is admitted there which does not fall in with the editor's views. Nothing could be more mistaken. In any properly conducted newspaper, the editor exercises no control whatsoever over the corrspondence colums, except in these respects. He takes care that nothing libellous, indecent, or otherwise offensive to society, appears there ; and, for the sake of the general interests of the paper and its readers, he regulates, gently and with discretion, the length and degree of vigour, to put it mildly, of the correspondence which lie publishes on any given subject. Nobody has a right to expect that a newspaper will give space to letters which the public, or any reasonable wide section of them, do not caro to read. Hence the editor is perfectly justified in turning his face against mere bores, of correspondents who wish to air personal opinions or private matters. Even within these very wide limits, however, he errs, if he err at all, on the side of publicity. If there be a doubt as to whethor a letter should be published or not, it should get the benefit of the doubt, because it may strike a note of public interest, or otherwise do good. But on no account does the editor of a bona fide newspaper ever reject a letter, because its contents are opposed to his own views or run counter to the leading articles, The correspondence columns, properly considered, are the property of the public; and the Editor, if lie be worthy of his office, considers himself the trustee of the public in that respect, and deems it a point of honour to see that their riehts are jealously respected. There is a very strong reason for this, apart from its manifest fairness. Free and open discussion of public questions is of the essence of successful journalism ; and an editor must be a fool, as well as a littlo bit of the other thing, if from personal animus, subserviency to a clique, or any other such narrow motive, he restrict the liberty of his correspondence columns. If he know his business, he will say to the public, " Come one, come all, Write to mo as often and as freely as you like. I shall be delighted to hear from you, and you need never fear my altering a word of your letters, so they be fit for publication, or treating you otherwise than as one gentleman should treat another." The editor will oftentimes, 110 doubt, discuss the subject of a correspondence, in his leading column; but that is surely a compliment to the correspondent, who, if he be a reasonable fellow, will take no offence but will write again and do his utmost to get the best of the argument; and in all such cases, the editor ought to be careful not to take any undue advantage of his position. For our own part, we only wish such discussions were more frequent than they are.