A STINGING COMMENT BY A SECULAR PAPER.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVII, Issue 6, 11 February 1909, Page 212

A STINGING COMMENT BY A SECULAR PAPER.

The following comment on the correspondence reproduced above appeared" as a leading article in the LytteUon Times (Christchurch) of February 3, under the heading ' Newspaper Correspondence ' : — ' A n *? e P°} n^ i n * ne ethics of newspaper correspondence is raised in the exchange of views between the Rev. Father Hickson and the editor of the New .Zealand Times. We are naturally not disposed to intervene between . the Wellington journalist and his critic, but the discussion gives us an opportunity to clear up one or two matters on which newspaper readers are not generally well informed. In our own view the publication of Father Hickson's letter was inexcusable. The tradition's of British journalism draw a very sharp line between the correspondence of the, business side of a newspaper and the literary side, and even when the manager and the editor of a journal happen to be the same individual, he is not entitled to continue in the columns of the- newspaper a discussion commenced privately with the commercial office. The matter of the controversy, however, is admittedly of wide public interest; The idea

that in these days of the "freedom of the press "—that sadly abused phrase — a newspaper should open its columns to the unrestricted discussion of all sorts of questions is, we know, commonly held. But it is by no means the whole truth. Every reputable journal imposes restrictions upon .its correspondence. There is, first and foremost, the law of -libel to be observed. No journal is justified in publishing a wanton attack upon an individual. The very power, that it possesses compels it, morally as well as legally, to exercise a close supervision upon the matter that it publishes, and morally, as well as legally, it should be able to justify the publication, even of the bare truth, by showing that it has regard only for the welfare of the public. But apart from the law of libel there is a very potent influence that keeps a newspaper within bounds. It is the influence of public opinion. There are not many daily newspapers without "views" of their own, and the purpose of the ordinary secular newspaper, apart from the dissemination of views, is to preach its policy to as wide a circle of readers as possible. If its " policy " is political it does not wantonly offend sections of its readers by publishing articles offensive to- religious feelings. If it elects to throw open its columns to the unrestricted discussion of religious questions it is not entitled to complain if some of its readers protest. Father Hickson may be accused of .threatening to boycott: ithe New Zealand Times, yet to our mind he was perfectly within his rights, and he simply had the courage to express his views openly. We may or may not agree with his views of the pernicious nature of the .article to which he took exception, but we cannot honestly condemn him for protesting, any more than we should quarrel with a parent who declined to let his children read the reports of divorce proceedings. The editor must always .decide for himself whether he will admit any particular article to his journal, but having admitted it he should accept the consequences. Another interesting point is raised by the suggestion that an offensive article is less offensive because it is signed by the author. Some of our correspondents have a brave contempt for the anonymous correspondent, but we must confess that, in general, we have no faiilt to find with him. Certain letters ought to be signed with the author's name. Correspondence of a personal nature can scarcely be admitted anonymously. But here, again, the editor must exercise his own discretion in admitting or refusing to admit anonymous letters. In the great majority of cases the publication of the writer's name would add nothing to the value of a letter. Many men who have opinions and views to air are too modest to desire to see their names in print, and, as a rule, the signature has no significance. A letter carries special weight when it is signed by a prominent public man or by an acknowledged authority or expert. Otherwise the norn de plume seems to us to be preferable, because it provents a discussion of principles from degenerating into a discussion of personalities. There are plenty of instances, moreover, in which the signing of letters to the newspapers would lead to personal reprisals.^ Anonymity, we should say, is jxistifiable except where it is used for the purpose of deception, and there, again, the editor of a newspaper must watch the interests of the public. "We do not hesitate to exclude from our columns letters that would readily find admission to magazines and journals for the discussion of special topics, and we do so frankly because we believe that the feelings of our readers should be respected. Other journals may have other views, but if they suffer In influence or in circulation because of those views they are not entitled to complain.'