diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77035-0.txt | 1454 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77035-h/77035-h.htm | 2529 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77035-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 98601 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
6 files changed, 3999 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/77035-0.txt b/77035-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a9f2be0 --- /dev/null +++ b/77035-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1454 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77035 *** + + + + LIBERTY _and the_ NEWS + + + BY + WALTER LIPPMANN + + + NEW YORK + HARCOURT, BRACE AND HOWE + 1920 + + + COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY + THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY COMPANY + + COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY + HARCOURT, BRACE AND HOWE, INC. + + + + +In writing this tract I have dared to believe that many things +were possible because of the personal example offered to all who +practice journalism by Mr. C. P. Scott, for over forty-five years +editor-in-chief of the _Manchester Guardian_. In the light of his +career it cannot seem absurd or remote to think of freedom and truth in +relation to the news. + +Two of the essays in this volume, “What Modern Liberty Means” and +“Liberty and the News” were published originally in the _Atlantic +Monthly_. I wish to thank Mr. Ellery Sedgwick for the encouragement he +gave me while writing them, and for permission to reprint them in this +volume. + + W. L. + + New York City. + January 1, 1920. + + + + + CONTENTS + + + PAGE + Journalism and the Higher Law 3 + + What Modern Liberty Means 19 + + Liberty and the News 69 + + + + + JOURNALISM AND THE HIGHER LAW + + +Volume 1, Number 1, of the first American newspaper was published in +Boston on September 25, 1690. It was called _Publick Occurrences_. +The second issue did not appear because the Governor and Council +suppressed it. They found that Benjamin Harris, the editor, had printed +“reflections of a very high nature.”[1] Even to-day some of his +reflections seem very high indeed. In his prospectus he had written: + + “That something may be done toward the Curing, or at least the + Charming of that Spirit of Lying, which prevails amongst us, + wherefore nothing shall be entered, but what we have reason + to believe is true, repairing to the best fountains for our + Information. And when there appears any material mistake in + anything that is collected, it shall be corrected in the next. + Moreover, the Publisher of these Occurrences is willing to engage, + that whereas, there are many False Reports, maliciously made, and + spread among us, if any well-minded person will be at the pains + to trace any such false Report, so far as to find out and Convict + the First Raiser of it, he will in this Paper (unless just Advice + be given to the contrary) expose the Name of such Person, as A + malicious Raiser of a false Report. It is suppos’d that none will + dislike this Proposal, but such as intend to be guilty of so + villainous a Crime.” + +Everywhere to-day men are conscious that somehow they must deal with +questions more intricate than any that church or school had prepared +them to understand. Increasingly they know that they cannot understand +them if the facts are not quickly and steadily available. Increasingly +they are baffled because the facts are not available; and they are +wondering whether government by consent can survive in a time when the +manufacture of consent is an unregulated private enterprise. For in +an exact sense the present crisis of western democracy is a crisis in +journalism. + +I do not agree with those who think that the sole cause is corruption. +There is plenty of corruption, to be sure, moneyed control, caste +pressure, financial and social bribery, ribbons, dinner parties, clubs, +petty politics. The speculators in Russian rubles who lied on the Paris +Bourse about the capture of Petrograd are not the only example of their +species. And yet corruption does not explain the condition of modern +journalism. + +Mr. Franklin P. Adams wrote recently: “Now there is much +pettiness--and almost incredible stupidity and ignorance--in the +so-called free press; but it is the pettiness, etc., common to the +so-called human race--a pettiness found in musicians, steamfitters, +landlords, poets, and waiters. And when Miss Lowell [who had made the +usual aristocratic complaint] speaks of the incurable desire in all +American newspapers to make fun of everything in season and out, we +quarrel again. There is an incurable desire in American newspapers to +take things much more seriously than they deserve. Does Miss Lowell +read the ponderous news from Washington? Does she read the society +news? Does she, we wonder, read the newspapers?” + +Mr. Adams does read them, and when he writes that the newspapers +take things much more seriously than they deserve, he has, as the +mayor’s wife remarked to the queen, said a mouthful. Since the war, +especially, editors have come to believe that their highest duty is not +to report but to instruct, not to print news but to save civilization, +not to publish what Benjamin Harris calls “the Circumstances of +Publique Affairs, both abroad and at home,” but to keep the nation on +the straight and narrow path. Like the Kings of England, they have +elected themselves Defenders of the Faith. “For five years,” says Mr. +Cobb of the _New York World_, “there has been no free play of public +opinion in the world. Confronted by the inexorable necessities of war, +governments conscripted public opinion.... They goose-stepped it. They +taught it to stand at attention and salute.... It sometimes seems that +after the armistice was signed, millions of Americans must have taken a +vow that they would never again do any thinking for themselves. They +were willing to die for their country, but not willing to think for +it.” That minority, which is proudly prepared to think for it, and not +only prepared, but cocksure that it alone knows how to think for it, +has adopted the theory that the public should know what is good for it. + +The work of reporters has thus become confused with the work of +preachers, revivalists, prophets and agitators. The current theory of +American newspaperdom is that an abstraction like the truth and a grace +like fairness must be sacrificed whenever anyone thinks the necessities +of civilization require the sacrifice. To Archbishop Whately’s dictum +that it matters greatly whether you put truth in the first place or +the second, the candid expounder of modern journalism would reply that +he put truth second to what he conceived to be the national interest. +Judged simply by their product, men like Mr. Ochs or Viscount +Northcliffe believe that their respective nations will perish and +civilization decay unless their idea of what is patriotic is permitted +to temper the curiosity of their readers. + +They believe that edification is more important than veracity. They +believe it profoundly, violently, relentlessly. They preen themselves +upon it. To patriotism, as they define it from day to day, all other +considerations must yield. That is their pride. And yet what is this +but one more among myriad examples of the doctrine that the end +justifies the means. A more insidiously misleading rule of conduct was, +I believe, never devised among men. It was a plausible rule as long as +men believed that an omniscient and benevolent Providence taught them +what end to seek. But now that men are critically aware of how their +purposes are special to their age, their locality, their interests, and +their limited knowledge, it is blazing arrogance to sacrifice hard-won +standards of credibility to some special purpose. It is nothing but +the doctrine that I want what I want when I want it. Its monuments are +the Inquisition and the invasion of Belgium. It is the reason given +for almost every act of unreason, the law invoked whenever lawlessness +justifies itself. At bottom it is nothing but the anarchical nature of +man imperiously hacking its way through. + +Just as the most poisonous form of disorder is the mob incited from +high places, the most immoral act the immorality of a government, so +the most destructive form of untruth is sophistry and propaganda by +those whose profession it is to report the news. The news columns are +common carriers. When those who control them arrogate to themselves +the right to determine by their own consciences what shall be reported +and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable. Public opinion is +blockaded. For when a people can no longer confidently repair ‘to +the best fountains for their information,’ then anyone’s guess and +anyone’s rumor, each man’s hope and each man’s whim becomes the basis +of government. All that the sharpest critics of democracy have alleged +is true, if there is no steady supply of trustworthy and relevant news. +Incompetence and aimlessness, corruption and disloyalty, panic and +ultimate disaster, must come to any people which is denied an assured +access to the facts. No one can manage anything on pap. Neither can a +people. + +Statesmen may devise policies; they will end in futility, as so +many have recently ended, if the propagandists and censors can put +a painted screen where there should be a window to the world. Few +episodes in recent history are more poignant than that of the British +Prime Minister, sitting at the breakfast table with that morning’s +paper before him protesting that he cannot do the sensible thing in +regard to Russia because a powerful newspaper proprietor has drugged +the public. That incident is a photograph of the supreme danger which +confronts popular government. All other dangers are contingent upon it, +for the news is the chief source of the opinion by which government +now proceeds. So long as there is interposed between the ordinary +citizen and the facts a news organization determining by entirely +private and unexamined standards, no matter how lofty, what he shall +know, and hence what he shall believe, no one will be able to say that +the substance of democratic government is secure. The theory of our +constitution, says Mr. Justice Holmes, is that truth is the only ground +upon which men’s wishes safely can be carried out.[2] In so far as +those who purvey the news make of their own beliefs a higher law than +truth, they are attacking the foundations of our constitutional system. +There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and +shame the devil. + +That I have few illusions as to the difficulty of truthful reporting +anyone can see who reads these pages. If truthfulness were simply a +matter of sincerity the future would be rather simple. But the modern +news problem is not solely a question of the newspaperman’s morals. It +is, as I have tried to show in what follows, the intricate result of +a civilization too extensive for any man’s personal observation. As +the problem is manifold, so must be the remedy. There is no panacea. +But however puzzling the matter may be, there are some things that +anyone may assert about it, and assert without fear of contradiction. +They are that there _is_ a problem of the news which is of absolutely +basic importance to the survival of popular government, and that the +importance of that problem is not vividly realized nor sufficiently +considered. + +In a few generations it will seem ludicrous to historians that a people +professing government by the will of the people should have made no +serious effort to guarantee the news without which a governing opinion +cannot exist. “Is it possible,” they will ask, “that at the beginning +of the Twentieth Century nations calling themselves democracies were +content to act on what happened to drift across their doorsteps; that +apart from a few sporadic exposures and outcries they made no plans to +bring these common carriers under social control; that they provided +no genuine training schools for the men upon whose sagacity they were +dependent; above all that their political scientists went on year after +year writing and lecturing about government without producing one, one +single, significant study of the process of public opinion?” And then +they will recall the centuries in which the Church enjoyed immunity +from criticism, and perhaps they will insist that the news structure of +secular society was not seriously examined for analogous reasons. + +When they search into the personal records they will find that among +journalists, as among the clergy, institutionalism had induced the +usual prudence. I have made no criticism in this book which is not the +shoptalk of reporters and editors. But only rarely do newspapermen take +the general public into their confidence. They will have to sooner or +later. It is not enough for them to struggle against great odds, as +many of them are doing, wearing out their souls to do a particular +assignment well. The philosophy of the work itself needs to be +discussed; the news about the news needs to be told. For the news about +the government of the news structure touches the center of all modern +government. + +They need not be much concerned if leathery-minded individuals ask What +is Truth of all who plead for the effort of truth in modern journalism. +Jesting Pilate asked the same question, and he also would not stay +for an answer. No doubt an organon of news reporting must wait upon +the development of psychology and political science. But resistance +to the inertias of the profession, heresy to the institution, and the +willingness to be fired rather than write what you do not believe, +these wait on nothing but personal courage. And without the assistance +which they will bring from within the profession itself, democracy +through it will deal with the problem somehow, will deal with it badly. + +The essays which follow are an attempt to describe the character of the +problem, and to indicate headings under which it may be found useful to +look for remedies. + + +Footnotes: + +[1] “History of American Journalism,” James Melvin Lee, Houghton +Mifflin Co., 1917, p. 10. + +[2] Supreme Court of the United States, No. 316, October term, 1919, +Jacob Abrams et al., Plaintiffs in Error vs. the United States. + + + + + WHAT MODERN LIBERTY MEANS + + +From our recent experience it is clear that the traditional liberties +of speech and opinion rest on no solid foundation. At a time when +the world needs above all other things the activity of generous +imaginations and the creative leadership of planning and inventive +minds, our thinking is shriveled with panic. Time and energy that +should go to building and restoring are instead consumed in warding +off the pin-pricks of prejudice and fighting a guerilla war against +misunderstanding and intolerance. For suppression is felt, not simply +by the scattered individuals who are actually suppressed. It reaches +back into the steadiest minds, creating tension everywhere; and the +tension of fear produces sterility. Men cease to say what they think; +and when they cease to say it, they soon cease to think it. They think +in reference to their critics and not in reference to the facts. For +when thought becomes socially hazardous, men spend more time wondering +about the hazard than they do in cultivating their thought. Yet nothing +is more certain than that mere bold resistance will not permanently +liberate men’s minds. The problem is not only greater than that, but +different, and the time is ripe for reconsideration. We have learned +that many of the hard-won rights of man are utterly insecure. It may +be that we cannot make them secure simply by imitating the earlier +champions of liberty. + +Something important about the human character was exposed by Plato +when, with the spectacle of Socrates’s death before him, he founded +Utopia on a censorship stricter than any which exists on this heavily +censored planet. His intolerance seems strange. But it is really the +logical expression of an impulse that most of us have not the candor to +recognize. It was the service of Plato to formulate the dispositions +of men in the shape of ideals, and the surest things we can learn from +him are not what we ought to do, but what we are inclined to do. We +are peculiarly inclined to suppress whatever impugns the security of +that to which we have given our allegiance. If our loyalty is turned to +what exists, intolerance begins at its frontiers; if it is turned, as +Plato’s was, to Utopia, we shall find Utopia defended with intolerance. + +There are, so far as I can discover, no absolutists of liberty; I can +recall no doctrine of liberty, which, under the acid test, does not +become contingent upon some other ideal. The goal is never liberty, but +liberty for something or other. For liberty is a condition under which +activity takes place, and men’s interests attach themselves primarily +to their activities and what is necessary to fulfill them, not to the +abstract requirements of any activity that might be conceived. + +And yet controversialists rarely take this into account. The battle +is fought with banners on which are inscribed absolute and universal +ideals. They are not absolute and universal in fact. No man has ever +thought out an absolute or a universal ideal in politics, for the +simple reason that nobody knows enough, or can know enough, to do it. +But we all use absolutes, because an ideal which seems to exist apart +from time, space, and circumstance has a prestige that no candid avowal +of special purpose can ever have. Looked at from one point of view +universals are part of the fighting apparatus in men. What they desire +enormously they easily come to call God’s will, or their nation’s +purpose. Looked at genetically, these idealizations are probably +born in that spiritual reverie where all men live most of the time. +In reverie there is neither time, space, nor particular reference, +and hope is omnipotent. This omnipotence, which is denied to them in +action, nevertheless illuminates activity with a sense of utter and +irresistible value. + +The classic doctrine of liberty consists of absolutes. It consists +of them except at the critical points where the author has come into +contact with objective difficulties. Then he introduces into the +argument, somewhat furtively, a reservation which liquidates its +universal meaning and reduces the exalted plea for liberty in general +to a special argument for the success of a special purpose. + +There are at the present time, for instance, no more fervent champions +of liberty than the western sympathizers with the Russian Soviet +government. Why is it that they are indignant when Mr. Burleson +suppresses a newspaper and complacent when Lenin does? And, _vice +versa_, why is it that the anti-Bolshevist forces in the world are +in favor of restricting constitutional liberty as a preliminary to +establishing genuine liberty in Russia? Clearly the argument about +liberty has little actual relation to the existence of it. It is the +purpose of the social conflict, not the freedom of opinion, that lies +close to the heart of the partisans. The word liberty is a weapon and +an advertisement, but certainly not an ideal which transcends all +special aims. + +If there were any man who believed in liberty apart from particular +purposes, that man would be a hermit contemplating all existence with +a hopeful and neutral eye. For him, in the last analysis, there could +be nothing worth resisting, nothing particularly worth attaining, +nothing particularly worth defending, not even the right of hermits +to contemplate existence with a cold and neutral eye. He would be +loyal simply to the possibilities of the human spirit, even to those +possibilities which most seriously impair its variety and its health. +No such man has yet counted much in the history of politics. For +what every theorist of liberty has meant is that certain types of +behavior and classes of opinion hitherto regulated should be somewhat +differently regulated in the future. What each seems to say is that +opinion and action should be free; that liberty is the highest and +most sacred interest of life. But somewhere each of them inserts a +weasel clause to the effect that “of course” the freedom granted +shall not be employed too destructively. It is this clause which +checks exuberance and reminds us that, in spite of appearances, we are +listening to finite men pleading a special cause. + +Among the English classics none are more representative than Milton’s +_Areopagitica_ and the essay _On Liberty_ by John Stuart Mill. Of +living men Mr. Bertrand Russell is perhaps the most outstanding +advocate of liberty. The three together are a formidable set of +witnesses. Yet nothing is easier than to draw texts from each which can +be cited either as an argument for absolute liberty or as an excuse for +as much repression as seems desirable at the moment. Says Milton: + + Yet if all cannot be of one mind, as who looks they should be? this + doubtles is more wholsome, more prudent, and more Christian that + many be tolerated, rather than all compell’d. + +So much for the generalization. Now for the qualification which follows +immediately upon it. + + I mean not tolerated Popery, and open superstition, which as it + extirpats all religions and civill supremacies, so itself should + be extirpat, provided first that all charitable and compassionat + means be used to win and regain the weak and misled: that also + which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or maners + no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw it self: but + those neighboring differences, or rather _indifferences_, are what + I speak of, whether in some point of doctrine or of discipline, + which though they may be many, yet need not interrupt the unity of + spirit, if we could but find among us the bond of peace. + +With this as a text one could set up an inquisition. Yet it occurs +in the noblest plea for liberty that exists in the English language. +The critical point in Milton’s thought is revealed by the word +“indifferences.” The area of opinion which he wished to free comprised +the “neighboring differences” of certain Protestant sects, and only +these where they were truly ineffective in manners and morals. Milton, +in short, had come to the conclusion that certain conflicts of doctrine +were sufficiently insignificant to be tolerated. The conclusion +depended far less upon his notion of the value of liberty than upon +his conception of God and human nature and the England of his time. He +urged indifference to things that were becoming indifferent. + +If we substitute the word indifference for the word liberty, we shall +come much closer to the real intention that lies behind the classic +argument. Liberty is to be permitted where differences are of no great +moment. It is this definition which has generally guided practice. In +times when men feel themselves secure, heresy is cultivated as the +spice of life. During a war liberty disappears as the community feels +itself menaced. When revolution seems to be contagious, heresy-hunting +is a respectable occupation. In other words, when men are not afraid, +they are not afraid of ideas; when they are much afraid, they are +afraid of anything that seems, or can even be made to appear, +seditious. That is why nine-tenths of the effort to live and let live +consists in proving that the thing we wish to have tolerated is really +a matter of indifference. + +In Mill this truth reveals itself still more clearly. Though his +argument is surer and completer than Milton’s, the qualification is +also surer and completer. + + Such being the reasons which make it imperative that human + beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their + opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to + the intellectual and through that to the moral nature of man, + unless this liberty is either conceded or asserted in spite of + prohibition, let us next examine whether the same reasons do not + require that men should be free to act upon their opinions, to + carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either moral + or physical, from their fellow men, so long as it is at their own + risk and peril. _This last proviso is of course indispensable._ + No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. + On the contrary, _even opinions lose their immunity_ when the + circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute + their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. + +“At their own risk and peril.” In other words, at the risk of eternal +damnation. The premise from which Mill argued was that many opinions +then under the ban of society were of no interest to society, and ought +therefore not to be interfered with. The orthodoxy with which he was at +war was chiefly theocratic. It assumed that a man’s opinions on cosmic +affairs might endanger his personal salvation and make him a dangerous +member of society. Mill did not believe in the theological view, did +not fear damnation, and was convinced that morality did not depend upon +the religious sanction. In fact, he was convinced that a more reasoned +morality could be formed by laying aside theological assumptions. “But +no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.” The plain +truth is that Mill did not believe that much action would result from +the toleration of those opinions in which he was most interested. + +Political heresy occupied the fringe of his attention, and he uttered +only the most casual comments. So incidental are they, so little do +they impinge on his mind, that the arguments of this staunch apostle of +liberty can be used honestly, and in fact are used, to justify the bulk +of the suppressions which have recently occurred. “Even opinions lose +their immunity, _when the circumstances_ in which they are expressed +are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to +some mischievious act.” Clearly there is no escape here for Debs or +Haywood or obstructors of Liberty Loans. The argument used is exactly +the one employed in sustaining the conviction of Debs. + +In corroboration Mill’s single concrete instance may be cited: “An +opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private +property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated +through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered +orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, +or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” + +Clearly Mill’s theory of liberty wore a different complexion when he +considered opinions which might directly affect social order. Where the +stimulus of opinion upon action was effective he could say with entire +complacency, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; +he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Because Mill +believed this, it is entirely just to infer that the distinction drawn +between a speech or placard and publication in the press would soon +have broken down for Mill had he lived at a time when the press really +circulated and the art of type-display had made a newspaper strangely +like a placard. + +On first acquaintance no man would seem to go further than Mr. Bertrand +Russell in loyalty to what he calls “the unfettered development of all +the instincts that build up life and fill it with mental delights.” +He calls these instincts “creative”; and against them he sets off the +“possessive impulses.” These, he says, should be restricted by “a +public authority, a repository of practically irresistible force whose +function should be primarily to repress the private use of force.” +Where Milton said no “tolerated Popery,” Mr. Russell says, no tolerated +“possessive impulses.” Surely he is open to the criticism that, like +every authoritarian who has preceded him, he is interested in the +unfettered development of only that which seems good to him. Those who +think that “enlightened selfishness” produces social harmony will +tolerate more of the possessive impulses, and will be inclined to put +certain of Mr. Russell’s creative impulses under lock and key. + +The moral is, not that Milton, Mill, and Bertrand Russell are +inconsistent, or that liberty is to be obtained by arguing for it +without qualifications. The impulse to what we call liberty is as +strong in these three men as it is ever likely to be in our society. +The moral is of another kind. It is that the traditional core of +liberty, namely, the notion of indifference, is too feeble and unreal +a doctrine to protect the purpose of liberty, which is the furnishing +of a healthy environment in which human judgment and inquiry can most +successfully organize human life. Too feeble, because in time of stress +nothing is easier than to insist, and by insistence to convince, that +tolerated indifference is no longer tolerable because it has ceased to +be indifferent. + +It is clear that in a society where public opinion has become +decisive, nothing that counts in the formation of it can really be a +matter of indifference. When I say “can be,” I am speaking literally. +What men believed about the constitution of heaven became a matter +of indifference when heaven disappeared in metaphysics; but what +they believe about property, government, conscription, taxation, +the origins of the late war, or the origins of the Franco-Prussian +War, or the distribution of Latin culture in the vicinity of copper +mines, constitutes the difference between life and death, prosperity +and misfortune, and it will never on this earth be tolerated as +indifferent, or not interfered with, no matter how many noble arguments +are made for liberty, or how many martyrs give their lives for it. +If widespread tolerance of opposing views is to be achieved in modern +society, it will not be simply by fighting the Debs’ cases through the +courts, and certainly not by threatening to upset those courts if they +do not yield to the agitation. The task is fundamentally of another +order, requiring other methods and other theories. + +The world about which each man is supposed to have opinions has become +so complicated as to defy his powers of understanding. What he knows of +events that matter enormously to him, the purposes of governments, the +aspirations of peoples, the struggle of classes, he knows at second, +third, or fourth hand. He cannot go and see for himself. Even the +things that are near to him have become too involved for his judgment. +I know of no man, even among those who devote all of their time to +watching public affairs, who can even pretend to keep track, at the +same time, of his city government, his state government, Congress, the +departments, the industrial situation, and the rest of the world. What +men who make the study of politics a vocation cannot do, the man who +has an hour a day for newspapers and talk cannot possibly hope to do. +He must seize catchwords and headlines or nothing. + +This vast elaboration of the subject-matter of politics is the root of +the whole problem. News comes from a distance; it comes helter-skelter, +in inconceivable confusion; it deals with matters that are not easily +understood; it arrives and is assimilated by busy and tired people who +must take what is given to them. Any lawyer with a sense of evidence +knows how unreliable such information must necessarily be. + +The taking of testimony in a trial is hedged about with a thousand +precautions derived from long experience of the fallibility of the +witness and the prejudices of the jury. We call this, and rightly, a +fundamental phase of human liberty. But in public affairs the stake +is infinitely greater. It involves the lives of millions, and the +fortune of everybody. The jury is the whole community, not even the +qualified voters alone. The jury is everybody who creates public +sentiment--chattering gossips, unscrupulous liars, congenital liars, +feeble-minded people, prostitute minds, corrupting agents. To this jury +any testimony is submitted, is submitted in any form, by any anonymous +person, with no test of reliability, no test of credibility, and no +penalty for perjury. If I lie in a lawsuit involving the fate of my +neighbor’s cow, I can go to jail. But if I lie to a million readers +in a matter involving war and peace, I can lie my head off, and, if +I choose the right series of lies, be entirely irresponsible. Nobody +will punish me if I lie about Japan, for example. I can announce that +every Japanese valet is a reservist, and every Japanese art store a +mobilization center. I am immune. And if there should be hostilities +with Japan, the more I lied the more popular I should be. If I asserted +that the Japanese secretly drank the blood of children, that Japanese +women were unchaste, that the Japanese were really not a branch of the +human race after all, I guarantee that most of the newspapers would +print it eagerly, and that I could get a hearing in churches all over +the country. And all this for the simple reason that the public, when +it is dependent on testimony and protected by no rules of evidence, can +act only on the excitement of its pugnacities and its hopes. + +The mechanism of the news-supply has developed without plan, and there +is no one point in it at which one can fix the responsibility for +truth. The fact is that the subdivision of labor is now accompanied +by the subdivision of the news-organization. At one end of it is the +eye-witness, at the other, the reader. Between the two is a vast, +expensive transmitting and editing apparatus. This machine works +marvelously well at times, particularly in the rapidity with which +it can report the score of a game or a transatlantic flight, or the +death of a monarch, or the result of an election. But where the +issue is complex, as for example in the matter of the success of a +policy, or the social conditions among a foreign people,--that is to +say, where the real answer is neither yes or no, but subtle, and a +matter of balanced evidence,--the subdivision of the labor involved in +the report causes no end of derangement, misunderstanding, and even +misrepresentation. + +Thus the number of eye-witnesses capable of honest statement is +inadequate and accidental. Yet the reporter making up his news is +dependent upon the eye-witnesses. They may be actors in the event. Then +they can hardly be expected to have perspective. Who, for example, +if he put aside his own likes and dislikes would trust a Bolshevik’s +account of what exists in Soviet Russia or an exiled Russian prince’s +story of what exists in Siberia? Sitting just across the frontier, +say in Stockholm, how is a reporter to write dependable news when his +witnesses consist of _emigrés_ or Bolshevist agents? + +At the Peace Conference, news was given out by the agents of the +conferees and the rest leaked through those who were clamoring at the +doors of the Conference. Now the reporter, if he is to earn his living, +must nurse his personal contacts with the eye-witnesses and privileged +informants. If he is openly hostile to those in authority, he will +cease to be a reporter unless there is an opposition party in the inner +circle who can feed him news. Failing that, he will know precious +little of what is going on. + +Most people seem to believe that, when they meet a war correspondent or +a special writer from the Peace Conference, they have seen a man who +has seen the things he wrote about. Far from it. Nobody, for example, +saw this war. Neither the men in the trenches nor the commanding +general. The men saw their trenches, their billets, sometimes they saw +an enemy trench, but nobody, unless it be the aviators, saw a battle. +What the correspondents saw, occasionally, was the terrain over which +a battle had been fought; but what they reported day by day was what +they were told at press headquarters, and of that only what they were +allowed to tell. + +At the Peace Conference the reporters were allowed to meet periodically +the four least important members of the Commission, men who themselves +had considerable difficulty in keeping track of things, as any reporter +who was present will testify. This was supplemented by spasmodic +personal interviews with the commissioners, their secretaries, their +secretaries’ secretaries, other newspaper men, and confidential +representatives of the President, who stood between him and the +impertinences of curiosity. This and the French press, than which there +is nothing more censored and inspired, a local English trade-journal +of the expatriates, the gossip of the Crillon lobby, the Majestic, and +the other official hotels, constituted the source of the news upon +which American editors and the American people have had to base one of +the most difficult judgments of their history. I should perhaps add +that there were a few correspondents occupying privileged positions +with foreign governments. They wore ribbons in their button-holes to +prove it. They were in many ways the most useful correspondents because +they always revealed to the trained reader just what it was that their +governments wished America to believe. + +The news accumulated by the reporter from his witnesses has to be +selected, if for no other reason than that the cable facilities are +limited. At the cable office several varieties of censorship intervene. +The legal censorship in Europe is political as well as military, and +both words are elastic. It has been applied, not only to the substance +of the news, but to the mode of presentation, and even to the character +of the type and the position on the page. But the real censorship on +the wires is the cost of transmission. This in itself is enough to +limit any expensive competition or any significant independence. The +big Continental news agencies are subsidized. Censorship operates also +through congestion and the resultant need of a system of priority. +Congestion makes possible good and bad service, and undesirable +messages are not infrequently served badly. + +When the report does reach the editor, another series of interventions +occurs. The editor is a man who may know all about something, but he +can hardly be expected to know all about everything. Yet he has to +decide the question which is of more importance than any other in the +formation of opinions, the question where attention is to be directed. +In a newspaper the heads are the foci of attention, the odd corners the +fringe; and whether one aspect of the news or another appears in the +center or at the periphery makes all the difference in the world. The +news of the day as it reaches the newspaper office is an incredible +medley of fact, propaganda, rumor, suspicion, clues, hopes, and fears, +and the task of selecting and ordering that news is one of the truly +sacred and priestly offices in a democracy. For the newspaper is in +all literalness the bible of democracy, the book out of which a people +determines its conduct. It is the only serious book most people read. +It is the only book they read every day. Now the power to determine +each day what shall seem important and what shall be neglected is a +power unlike any that has been exercised since the Pope lost his hold +on the secular mind. + +The ordering is not done by one man, but by a host of men, who are on +the whole curiously unanimous in their selection and in their emphasis. +Once you know the party and social affiliations of a newspaper, you +can predict with considerable certainty the perspective in which the +news will be displayed. This perspective is by no means altogether +deliberate. Though the editor is ever so much more sophisticated than +all but a minority of his readers, his own sense of relative importance +is determined by rather standardized constellations of ideas. He very +soon comes to believe that his habitual emphasis is the only possible +one. + +Why the editor is possessed by a particular set of ideas is a +difficult question in social psychology, of which no adequate analysis +has been made. But we shall not be far wrong if we say that he deals +with the news in reference to the prevailing _mores_ of his social +group. These _mores_ are of course in a large measure the product of +what previous newspapers have said; and experience shows that, in order +to break out of this circle, it has been necessary at various times +to create new forms of journalism, such as the national monthly, the +critical weekly, the circular, the paid advertisements of ideas, in +order to change the emphasis which had become obsolete and habit-ridden. + +Into this extremely refractory, and I think increasingly disserviceable +mechanism, there has been thrown, especially since the outbreak of +war, another monkey-wrench--propaganda. The word, of course, covers +a multitude of sins and a few virtues. The virtues can be easily +separated out, and given another name, either advertisement or +advocacy. Thus, if the National Council of Belgravia wishes to publish +a magazine out of its own funds, under its own imprint, advocating +the annexation of Thrums, no one will object. But if, in support of +that advocacy, it gives to the press stories that are lies about the +atrocities committed in Thrums; or, worse still, if those stories +seem to come from Geneva, or Amsterdam, not from the press-service +of the National Council of Belgravia, then Belgravia is conducting +propaganda. If, after arousing a certain amount of interest in itself, +Belgravia then invites a carefully selected correspondent, or perhaps +a labor leader, to its capital, puts him up at the best hotel, rides +him around in limousines, fawns on him at banquets, lunches with him +very confidentially, and then puts him through a conducted tour so that +he shall see just what will create the desired impression, then again +Belgravia is conducting propaganda. Or if Belgravia happens to possess +the greatest trombone-player in the world, and if she sends him over +to charm the wives of influential husbands, Belgravia is, in a less +objectionable way, perhaps, committing propaganda, and making fools of +the husbands. + +Now, the plain fact is that out of the troubled areas of the world +the public receives practically nothing that is not propaganda. Lenin +and his enemies control all the news there is of Russia, and no +court of law would accept any of the testimony as valid in a suit to +determine the possession of a donkey. I am writing many months after +the Armistice. The Senate is at this moment engaged in debating the +question whether it will guarantee the frontiers of Poland; but what +we learn of Poland we learn from the Polish Government and the Jewish +Committee. Judgment on the vexed issues of Europe is simply out of the +question for the average American; and the more cocksure he is, the +more certainly is he the victim of some propaganda. + +These instances are drawn from foreign affairs, but the difficulty at +home, although less flagrant, is nevertheless real. Theodore Roosevelt, +and Leonard Wood after him, have told us to think nationally. It is not +easy. It is easy to parrot what those people say who live in a few big +cities and who have constituted themselves the only true and authentic +voice of America. But beyond that it is difficult. I live in New York +and I have not the vaguest idea what Brooklyn is interested in. It is +possible, with effort, much more effort than most people can afford to +give, for me to know what a few organized bodies like the Non-Partisan +League, the National Security League, the American Federation of +Labor, and the Republican National Committee are up to; but what the +unorganized workers, and the unorganized farmers, the shopkeepers, the +local bankers and boards of trade are thinking and feeling, no one has +any means of knowing, except perhaps in a vague way at election time. +To think nationally means, at least, to take into account the major +interests and needs and desires of this continental population; and for +that each man would need a staff of secretaries, traveling agents, and +a very expensive press-clipping bureau. + +We do not think nationally because the facts that count are not +systematically reported and presented in a form we can digest. Our +most abysmal ignorance occurs where we deal with the immigrant. If +we read his press at all, it is to discover “Bolshevism” in it and +to blacken all immigrants with suspicion. For his culture and his +aspirations, for his high gifts of hope and variety, we have neither +eyes nor ears. The immigrant colonies are like holes in the road which +we never notice until we trip over them. Then, because we have no +current information and no background of facts, we are, of course, the +undiscriminating objects of any agitator who chooses to rant against +“foreigners.” + +Now, men who have lost their grip upon the relevant facts of their +environment are the inevitable victims of agitation and propaganda. The +quack, the charlatan, the jingo, and the terrorist, can flourish only +where the audience is deprived of independent access to information. +But where all news comes at second-hand, where all the testimony +is uncertain, men cease to respond to truths, and respond simply to +opinions. The environment in which they act is not the realities +themselves, but the pseudo-environment of reports, rumors, and guesses. +The whole reference of thought comes to be what somebody asserts, not +what actually is. Men ask, not whether such and such a thing occurred +in Russia, but whether Mr. Raymond Robins is at heart more friendly +to the Bolsheviki than Mr. Jerome Landfield. And so, since they are +deprived of any trustworthy means of knowing what is really going on, +since everything is on the plane of assertion and propaganda, they +believe whatever fits most comfortably with their prepossessions. + +That this breakdown of the means of public knowledge should occur at +a time of immense change is a compounding of the difficulty. From +bewilderment to panic is a short step, as everyone knows who has +watched a crowd when danger threatens. At the present time a nation +easily acts like a crowd. Under the influence of headlines and panicky +print, the contagion of unreason can easily spread through a settled +community. For when the comparatively recent and unstable nervous +organization which makes us capable of responding to reality as it is, +and not as we should wish it, is baffled over a continuing period of +time, the more primitive but much stronger instincts are let loose. + +War and Revolution, both of them founded on censorship and propaganda, +are the supreme destroyers of realistic thinking, because the excess of +danger and the fearful overstimulation of passion unsettle disciplined +behavior. Both breed fanatics of all kinds, men who, in the words of +Mr. Santayana, have redoubled their effort when they have forgotten +their aim. The effort itself has become the aim. Men live in their +effort, and for a time find great exaltation. They seek stimulation +of their effort rather than direction of it. That is why both in war +and revolution there seems to operate a kind of Gresham’s Law of the +emotions, in which leadership passes by a swift degradation from a +Mirabeau to a Robespierre; and in war, from a high-minded statesmanship +to the depths of virulent, hating jingoism. + +The cardinal fact always is the loss of contact with objective +information. Public as well as private reason depends upon it. Not +what somebody says, not what somebody wishes were true, but what is +so beyond all our opining, constitutes the touchstone of our sanity. +And a society which lives at second-hand will commit incredible +follies and countenance inconceivable brutalities if that contact +is intermittent and untrustworthy. Demagoguery is a parasite that +flourishes where discrimination fails, and only those who are at grips +with things themselves are impervious to it. For, in the last analysis, +the demagogue, whether of the Right or the Left, is, consciously or +unconsciously an undetected liar. + +Many students of politics have concluded that, because public opinion +was unstable, the remedy lay in making government as independent +of it as possible. The theorists of representative government have +argued persistently from this premise against the believers in direct +legislation. But it appears now that, while they have been making their +case against direct legislation, rather successfully it seems to +me, they have failed sufficiently to notice the increasing malady of +representative government. + +Parliamentary action is becoming notoriously ineffective. In America +certainly the concentration of power in the Executive is out of +all proportion either to the intentions of the Fathers or to the +orthodox theory of representative government. The cause is fairly +clear. Congress is an assemblage of men selected for local reasons +from districts. It brings to Washington a more or less accurate sense +of the superficial desires of its constituency. In Washington it is +supposed to think nationally and internationally. But for that task +its equipment and its sources of information are hardly better than +that of any other reader of the newspaper. Except for its spasmodic +investigating committees, Congress has no particular way of informing +itself. But the Executive has. The Executive is an elaborate hierarchy +reaching to every part of the nation and to all parts of the world. +It has an independent machinery, fallible and not too truthworthy, +of course, but nevertheless a machinery of intelligence. It can be +informed and it can act, whereas Congress is not informed and cannot +act. + +Now the popular theory of representative government is that the +representatives have the information and therefore create the policy +which the executive administers. The more subtle theory is that the +executive initiates the policy which the legislature corrects in +accordance with popular wisdom. But when the legislature is haphazardly +informed, this amounts to very little, and the people themselves prefer +to trust the executive which knows, rather than the Congress which is +vainly trying to know. The result has been the development of a kind +of government which has been harshly described as plebiscite autocracy, +or government by newspapers. Decisions in the modern state tend to be +made by the interaction, not of Congress and the executive, but of +public opinion and the executive. + +Public opinion for this purpose finds itself collected about special +groups which act as extra-legal organs of government. There is a +labor nucleus, a farmers’ nucleus, a prohibition nucleus, a National +Security League nucleus, and so on. These groups conduct a continual +electioneering campaign upon the unformed, exploitable mass of +public opinion. Being special groups, they have special sources of +information, and what they lack in the way of information is often +manufactured. These conflicting pressures beat upon the executive +departments and upon Congress, and formulate the conduct of the +government. The government itself acts in reference to these groups +far more than in reference to the district congressmen. So politics as +it is now played consists in coercing and seducing the representative +by the threat and the appeal of these unofficial groups. Sometimes +they are the allies, sometimes the enemies, of the party in power, but +more and more they are the energy of public affairs. Government tends +to operate by the impact of controlled opinion upon administration. +This shift in the locus of sovereignty has placed a premium upon the +manufacture of what is usually called consent. No wonder that the most +powerful newspaper proprietor in the English-speaking world declined a +mere government post. + +No wonder, too, that the protection of the sources of its opinion +is the basic problem of democracy. Everything else depends upon it. +Without protection against propaganda, without standards of evidence, +without criteria of emphasis, the living substance of all popular +decision is exposed to every prejudice and to infinite exploitation. +That is why I have argued that the older doctrine of liberty was +misleading. It did not assume a public opinion that governs. +Essentially it demanded toleration of opinions that were, as Milton +said, indifferent. It can guide us little in a world where opinion is +sensitive and decisive. + +The axis of the controversy needs to be shifted. The attempt to draw +fine distinctions between “liberty” and “license” is no doubt part of +the day’s work, but it is fundamentally a negative part. It consists +in trying to make opinion responsible to prevailing social standards, +whereas the really important thing is to try and make opinion +increasingly responsible to the facts. There can be no liberty for a +community which lacks the information by which to detect lies. Trite as +the conclusion may at first seem, it has, I believe, immense practical +consequences, and may perhaps offer an escape from the logomachy into +which the contests of liberty so easily degenerate. + +It may be bad to suppress a particular opinion, but the really deadly +thing is to suppress the news. In time of great insecurity, certain +opinions acting on unstable minds may cause infinite disaster. Knowing +that such opinions necessarily originate in slender evidence, that +they are propelled more by prejudice from the rear than by reference +to realities, it seems to me that to build the case for liberty upon +the dogma of their unlimited prerogatives is to build it upon the +poorest foundation. For, even though we grant that the world is best +served by the liberty of all opinion, the plain fact is that men are +too busy and too much concerned to fight more than spasmodically for +such liberty. When freedom of opinion is revealed as freedom of error, +illusion, and misinterpretation, it is virtually impossible to stir up +much interest in its behalf. It is the thinnest of all abstractions and +an over-refinement of mere intellectualism. But people, wide circles +of people, are aroused when their curiosity is baulked. The desire +to know, the dislike of being deceived and made game of, is a really +powerful motive, and it is that motive that can best be enlisted in the +cause of freedom. + +What, for example, was the one most general criticism of the work +of the Peace Conference? It was that the covenants were not openly +arrived at. This fact stirred Republican Senators, British Labor, the +whole gamut of parties from the Right to the Left. And in the last +analysis lack of information about the Conference _was_ the origin +of its difficulties. Because of the secrecy endless suspicion was +aroused; because of it the world seemed to be presented with a series +of accomplished facts which it could not reject and did not wish +altogether to accept. It was lack of information which kept public +opinion from affecting the negotiations at the time when intervention +would have counted most and cost least. Publicity occurred when the +covenants were arrived at, with all the emphasis on the _at_. This +is what the Senate objected to, and this is what alienated much more +liberal opinion than the Senate represents. + +In a passage quoted previously in this essay, Milton said that +differences of opinion, “which though they may be many, yet need +not interrupt the unity of spirit, if we could but find among us the +bond of peace.” There is but one kind of unity possible in a world as +diverse as ours. It is unity of method, rather than of aim; the unity +of the disciplined experiment. There is but one bond of peace that is +both permanent and enriching: the increasing knowledge of the world in +which experiment occurs. With a common intellectual method and a common +area of valid fact, differences may become a form of coöperation and +cease to be an irreconcilable antagonism. + +That, I think, constitutes the meaning of freedom for us. We cannot +successfully define liberty, or accomplish it, by a series of +permissions and prohibitions. For that is to ignore the content of +opinion in favor of its form. Above all, it is an attempt to define +liberty of opinion in terms of opinion. It is a circular and sterile +logic. A useful definition of liberty is obtainable only by seeking +the principle of liberty in the main business of human life, that is +to say, in the process by which men educate their response and learn +to control their environment. In this view liberty is the name we +give to measures by which we protect and increase the veracity of the +information upon which we act. + + + + + LIBERTY AND THE NEWS + + +The debates about liberty have hitherto all been attempts to determine +just when in the series from Right to Left the censorship should +intervene. In the preceding paper I ventured to ask whether these +attempts do not turn on a misconception of the problem. The conclusion +reached was that, in dealing with liberty of opinion, we were dealing +with a subsidiary phase of the whole matter; that, so long as we were +content to argue about the privileges and immunities of opinion, +we were missing the point and trying to make bricks without straw. +We should never succeed even in fixing a standard of tolerance for +opinions, if we concentrated all our attention on the opinions. For +they are derived, not necessarily by reason, to be sure, but somehow, +from the stream of news that reaches the public, and the protection +of that stream is the critical interest in a modern state. In going +behind opinion to the information which it exploits, and in making +the validity of the news our ideal, we shall be fighting the battle +where it is really being fought. We shall be protecting for the public +interest that which all the special interests in the world are most +anxious to corrupt. + +As the sources of the news are protected, as the information they +furnish becomes accessible and usable, as our capacity to read that +information is educated, the old problem of tolerance will wear a new +aspect. Many questions which seem hopelessly insoluble now will cease +to seem important enough to be worth solving. Thus the advocates of a +larger freedom always argue that true opinions will prevail over error; +their opponents always claim that you can fool most of the people most +of the time. Both statements are true, but both are half-truths. True +opinions can prevail only if the facts to which they refer are known; +if they are not known, false ideas are just as effective as true ones, +if not a little more effective. + +The sensible procedure in matters affecting the liberty of opinion +would be to ensure as impartial an investigation of the facts as is +humanly possible. But it is just this investigation that is denied +us. It is denied us, because we are dependent upon the testimony +of anonymous and untrained and prejudiced witnesses; because the +complexity of the relevant facts is beyond the scope of our hurried +understanding; and finally, because the process we call education +fails so lamentably to educate the sense of evidence or the power of +penetrating to the controlling center of a situation. The task of +liberty, therefore, falls roughly under three heads, protection of +the sources of the news, organization of the news so as to make it +comprehensible, and education of human response. + +We need, first, to know what can be done with the existing +news-structure, in order to correct its grosser evils. How far is it +useful to go in fixing personal responsibility for the truthfulness of +news? Much further, I am inclined to think, than we have ever gone. We +ought to know the names of the whole staff of every periodical. While +it is not necessary, or even desirable, that each article should be +signed, each article should be documented, and false documentation +should be illegal. An item of news should always state whether it +is received from one of the great news-agencies, or from a reporter, +or from a press bureau. Particular emphasis should be put on marking +news supplied by press bureaus, whether they are labeled “Geneva,” or +“Stockholm,” or “El Paso.” + +One wonders next whether anything can be devised to meet that great +evil of the press, the lie which, once under way, can never be tracked +down. The more scrupulous papers will, of course, print a retraction +when they have unintentionally injured someone; but the retraction +rarely compensates the victim. The law of libel is a clumsy and +expensive instrument, and rather useless to private individuals or weak +organizations because of the gentlemen’s agreement which obtains in the +newspaper world. After all, the remedy for libel is not money damages, +but an undoing of the injury. Would it be possible then to establish +courts of honor in which publishers should be compelled to meet their +accusers and, if found guilty of misrepresentation, ordered to publish +the correction in the particular form and with the prominence specified +by the finding of the court? I do not know. Such courts might prove +to be a great nuisance, consuming time and energy and attention, and +offering too free a field for individuals with a persecution mania. + +Perhaps a procedure could be devised which would eliminate most of +these inconveniences. Certainly it would be a great gain if the +accountability of publishers could be increased. They exercise more +power over the individual than is healthy, as everybody knows who +has watched the yellow press snooping at keyholes and invading the +privacy of helpless men and women. Even more important than this, is +the utterly reckless power of the press in dealing with news vitally +affecting the friendship of peoples. In a Court of Honor, possible +perhaps only in Utopia, voluntary associations working for decent +relations with other peoples might hale the jingo and the subtle +propagandist before a tribunal, to prove the reasonable truth of his +assertion or endure the humiliation of publishing prominently a finding +against his character. + +This whole subject is immensely difficult, and full of traps. It would +be well worth an intensive investigation by a group of publishers, +lawyers, and students of public affairs. Because in some form or other +the next generation will attempt to bring the publishing business under +greater social control. There is everywhere an increasingly angry +disillusionment about the press, a growing sense of being baffled and +misled; and wise publishers will not pooh-pooh these omens. They might +well note the history of prohibition, where a failure to work out a +programme of temperance brought about an undiscriminating taboo. The +regulation of the publishing business is a subtle and elusive matter, +and only by an early and sympathetic effort to deal with great evils +can the more sensible minds retain their control. If publishers and +authors themselves do not face the facts and attempt to deal with +them, some day Congress, in a fit of temper, egged on by an outraged +public opinion, will operate on the press with an ax. For somehow the +community must find a way of making the men who publish news accept +responsibility for an honest effort not to misrepresent the facts. + +But the phrase “honest effort” does not take us very far. The problem +here is not different from that which we begin dimly to apprehend in +the field of government and business administration. The untrained +amateur may mean well, but he knows not how to do well. Why should he? +What are the qualifications for being a surgeon? A certain minimum of +special training. What are the qualifications for operating daily on +the brain and heart of a nation? None. Go some time and listen to the +average run of questions asked in interviews with Cabinet officers--or +anywhere else. + +I remember one reporter who was detailed to the Peace Conference by +a leading news-agency. He came around every day for “news.” It was a +time when Central Europe seemed to be disintegrating, and great doubt +existed as to whether governments would be found with which to sign +a peace. But all that this “reporter” wanted to know was whether the +German fleet, then safely interned at Scapa Flow, was going to be sunk +in the North Sea. He insisted every day on knowing that. For him it was +the German fleet or nothing. Finally, he could endure it no longer. So +he anticipated Admiral Reuther and announced, in a dispatch to his home +papers, that the fleet would be sunk. And when I say that a million +American adults learned all that they ever learned about the Peace +Conference through this reporter, I am stating a very moderate figure. + +He suggests the delicate question raised by the schools of journalism: +how far can we go in turning newspaper enterprise from a haphazard +trade into a disciplined profession? Quite far, I imagine, for it is +altogether unthinkable that a society like ours should remain forever +dependent upon untrained accidental witnesses. It is no answer to say +that there have been in the past, and that there are now, first-rate +correspondents. Of course there are. Men like Brailsford, Oulahan, +Gibbs, Lawrence, Swope, Strunsky, Draper, Hard, Dillon, Lowry, Levine, +Ackerman, Ray Stannard Baker, Frank Cobb, and William Allen White, +know their way about in this world. But they are eminences on a rather +flat plateau. The run of the news is handled by men of much smaller +caliber. It is handled by such men because reporting is not a dignified +profession for which men will invest the time and cost of an education, +but an underpaid, insecure, anonymous form of drudgery, conducted on +catch-as-catch-can principles. Merely to talk about the reporter in +terms of his real importance to civilization will make newspaper men +laugh. Yet reporting is a post of peculiar honor. Observation must +precede every other activity, and the public observer (that is, the +reporter) is a man of critical value. No amount of money or effort +spent in fitting the right men for this work could possibly be wasted, +for the health of society depends upon the quality of the information +it receives. + +Do our schools of journalism, the few we have, make this kind of +training their object, or are they trade-schools designed to fit men +for higher salaries in the existing structure? I do not presume to +answer the question, nor is the answer of great moment when we remember +how small a part these schools now play in actual journalism. But it +is important to know whether it would be worth while to endow large +numbers of schools on the model of those now existing, and make their +diplomas a necessary condition for the practice of reporting. It is +worth considering. Against the idea lies the fact that it is difficult +to decide just what reporting is--where in the whole mass of printed +matter it begins and ends. No one would wish to set up a closed guild +of reporters and thus exclude invaluable casual reporting and writing. +If there is anything in the idea at all, it would apply only to the +routine service of the news through large organizations. + +Personally I should distrust too much ingenuity of this kind, on the +ground that, while it might correct certain evils, the general tendency +would be to turn the control of the news over to unenterprising +stereotyped minds soaked in the traditions of a journalism always ten +years out of date. The better course is to avoid the deceptive short +cuts, and make up our minds to send out into reporting a generation +of men who will by sheer superiority, drive the incompetents out of +business. That means two things. It means a public recognition of the +dignity of such a career, so that it will cease to be the refuge of the +vaguely talented. With this increase of prestige must go a professional +training in journalism in which the ideal of objective testimony is +cardinal. The cynicism of the trade needs to be abandoned, for the +true patterns of the journalistic apprentice are not the slick persons +who scoop the news, but the patient and fearless men of science who +have labored to see what the world really is. It does not matter that +the news is not susceptible of mathematical statement. In fact, just +because news is complex and slippery, good reporting requires the +exercise of the highest of the scientific virtues. They are the habits +of ascribing no more credibility to a statement than it warrants, +a nice sense of the probabilities, and a keen understanding of the +quantitative importance of particular facts. You can judge the general +reliability of any observer most easily by the estimate he puts upon +the reliability of his own report. If you have no facts of your own +with which to check him, the best rough measurement is to wait and see +whether he is aware of any limitations in himself; whether he knows +that he saw only part of the event he describes; and whether he has any +background of knowledge against which he can set what he thinks he has +seen. + +This kind of sophistication is, of course, necessary for the merest +pretense to any education. But for different professions it needs to +be specialized in particular ways. A sound legal training is pervaded +by it, but the skepticism is pointed to the type of case with which +the lawyer deals. The reporter’s work is not carried on under the same +conditions, and therefore requires a different specialization. How he +is to acquire it is, of course, a pedagogical problem requiring an +inductive study of the types of witness and the sources of information +with whom the reporter is in contact. + +Some time in the future, when men have thoroughly grasped the rôle +of public opinion in society, scholars will not hesitate to write +treatises on evidence for the use of news-gathering services. No such +treatise exists to-day, because political science has suffered from +that curious prejudice of the scholar which consists in regarding an +irrational phenomenon as not quite worthy of serious study. + +Closely akin to an education in the tests of credibility is rigorous +discipline in the use of words. It is almost impossible to +overestimate the confusion in daily life caused by sheer inability +to use language with intention. We talk scornfully of “mere words.” +Yet through words the whole vast process of human communication takes +place. The sights and sounds and meanings of nearly all that we deal +with as “politics,” we learn, not by our own experience, but through +the words of others. If those words are meaningless lumps charged with +emotion, instead of the messengers of fact, all sense of evidence +breaks down. Just so long as big words like Bolshevism, Americanism, +patriotism, pro-Germanism, are used by reporters to cover anything and +anybody that the biggest fool at large wishes to include, just so long +shall we be seeking our course through a fog so dense that we cannot +tell whether we fly upside-down or right-side-up. It is a measure of +our education as a people that so many of us are perfectly content to +live our political lives in this fraudulent environment of unanalyzed +words. For the reporter, abracadabra is fatal. So long as he deals in +it, he is gullibility itself, seeing nothing of the world, and living, +as it were, in a hall of crazy mirrors. + +Only the discipline of a modernized logic can open the door to reality. +An overwhelming part of the dispute about “freedom of opinion” turns on +words which mean different things to the censor and the agitator. So +long as the meanings of the words are not dissociated, the dispute will +remain a circular wrangle. Education that shall make men masters of +their vocabulary is one of the central interests of liberty. For such +an education alone can transform the dispute into debate from similar +premises. + +A sense of evidence and a power to define words must for the +modern reporter be accompanied by a working knowledge of the main +stratifications and currents of interest. Unless he knows that “news” +of society almost always starts from a special group, he is doomed to +report the surface of events. He will report the ripples of a passing +steamer, and forget the tides and the currents and the ground-swell. He +will report what Kolchak or Lenin says, and see what they do only when +it confirms what he thinks they said. He will deal with the flicker +of events and not with their motive. There are ways of reading that +flicker so as to discern the motive, but they have not been formulated +in the light of recent knowledge. Here is big work for the student of +politics. The good reporter reads events with an intuition trained by +wide personal experience. The poor reporter cannot read them, because +he is not even aware that there is anything in particular to read. + +And then the reporter needs a general sense of what the world is doing. +Emphatically he ought not to be serving a cause, no matter how good. In +his professional activity it is no business of his to care whose ox is +gored. To be sure, when so much reporting is _ex parte_, and hostile to +insurgent forces, the insurgents in self-defense send out _ex parte_ +reporters of their own. But a community cannot rest content to learn +the truth about the Democrats by reading the Republican papers, and +the truth about the Republicans by reading the Democratic papers. +There is room, and there is need, for disinterested reporting; and if +this sounds like a counsel of perfection now, it is only because the +science of public opinion is still at the point where astronomy was +when theological interests proclaimed the conclusions that all research +must vindicate. + +While the reporter will serve no cause, he will possess a steady +sense that the chief purpose of “news” is to enable mankind to live +successfully toward the future. He will know that the world is a +process, not by any means always onward and upward, but never quite +the same. As the observer of the signs of change, his value to society +depends upon the prophetic discrimination with which he selects those +signs. + +But the news from which he must pick and choose has long since become +too complicated even for the most highly trained reporter. The work, +say, of the government is really a small part of the day’s news, yet +even the wealthiest and most resourceful newspapers fail in their +efforts to report “Washington.” The high lights and the disputes and +sensational incidents are noted, but no one can keep himself informed +about his Congressman or about the individual departments, by reading +the daily press. This failure in no way reflects on the newspapers. +It results from the intricacy and unwieldiness of the subject-matter. +Thus, it is easier to report Congress than it is to report the +departments, because the work of Congress crystallizes crudely every so +often in a roll-call. But administration, although it has become more +important than legislation, is hard to follow, because its results are +spread over a longer period of time, and its effects are felt in ways +that no reporter can really measure. + +Theoretically Congress is competent to act as the critical eye on +administration. Actually, the investigations Of Congress are almost +always planless raids, conducted by men too busy and too little +informed to do more than catch the grosser evils, or intrude upon good +work that is not understood. It was a recognition of these difficulties +that was the cause of two very interesting experiments in late years. +One was the establishment of more or less semi-official institutes +of government research; the other, the growth of specialized private +agencies which attempt to give technical summaries of the work of +various branches of the government. Neither experiment has created +much commotion: yet together they illustrate an idea which, properly +developed, will be increasingly valuable to an enlightened public +opinion. + +Their principle is simple. They are expert organized reporters. Having +no horror of dullness, no interest in being dramatic, they can study +statistics and orders and reports which are beyond the digestive powers +of a newspaper man or of his readers. The lines of their growth would +seem to be threefold: to make a current record, to make a running +analysis of it, and on the basis of both, to suggest plans. + +Record and analysis require an experimental formulation of standards by +which the work of government can be tested. Such standards are not to +be evolved off-hand out of anyone’s consciousness. Some have already +been worked out experimentally, others still need to be discovered; +all need to be refined and brought into perspective by the wisdom of +experience. Carried out competently, the public would gradually learn +to substitute objective criteria for gossip and intuitions. One can +imagine a public-health service subjected to such expert criticism. +The institute of research publishes the death-rate as a whole for a +period of years. It seems that for a particular season the rate is bad +in certain maladies, that in others the rate of improvement is not +sufficiently rapid. These facts are compared with the expenditures +of the service, and with the main lines of its activity. Are the bad +results due to the causes beyond the control of the service? do they +indicate a lack of foresight in asking appropriations for special work? +or in the absence of novel phenomena, do they point to a decline of the +personnel, or in its morale? If the latter, further analysis may reveal +that salaries are too low to attract men of ability, or that the head +of the service by bad management has weakened the interest of his staff. + +When the work of government is analyzed in some such way as this, the +reporter deals with a body of knowledge that has been organized for +his apprehension. In other words, he is able to report the “news,” +because between him and the raw material of government there has been +interposed a more or less expert political intelligence. He ceases to +be the ant, described by William James, whose view of a building was +obtained by crawling over the cracks in the walls. + +These political observatories will, I think, be found useful in all +branches of government, national, state, municipal, industrial, and +even in foreign affairs. They should be clearly out of reach either of +the wrath or of the favor of the office-holders. They must, of course, +be endowed, but the endowment should be beyond the immediate control +of the legislature and of the rich patron. Their independence can +be partially protected by the terms of the trust; the rest must be +defended by the ability of the institute to make itself so much the +master of the facts as to be impregnably based on popular confidence. + +One would like to think that the universities could be brought into +such a scheme. Were they in close contact with the current record and +analysis, there might well be a genuine “field work” in political +science for the students; and there could be no better directing +idea for their more advanced researches than the formulation of the +intellectual methods by which the experience of government could +be brought to usable control. After all, the purpose of studying +“political science” is to be able to act more effectively in politics, +the word effectively being understood in the largest and, therefore, +the ideal sense. In the universities men should be able to think +patiently and generously for the good of society. If they do not, +surely one of the reasons is that thought terminates in doctor’s theses +and brown quarterlies, and not in the critical issues of politics. + +On first thought, all this may seem rather a curious direction for +an inquiry into the substance of liberty. Yet we have always known, +as a matter of common sense, that there was an intimate connection +between “liberty” and the use of liberty. Every one who has examined +the subject at all has had to conclude that tolerance _per se_ is an +arbitrary line, and that, in practice, the determining factor is the +significance of the opinion to be tolerated. This study is based on an +avowal of that fact. Once it is avowed, there seems to be no way of +evading the conclusion that liberty is not so much permission as it is +the construction of a system of information increasingly independent of +opinion. In the long run it looks as if opinion could be made at once +free and enlightening only by transferring our interest from “opinion” +to the objective realities from which it springs. This thought has led +us to speculations on ways of protecting and organizing the stream +of news as the source of all opinion that matters. Obviously these +speculations do not pretend to offer a fully considered or a completed +scheme. Their nature forbids it, and I should be guilty of the very +opinionativeness I have condemned, did these essays claim to be +anything more than tentative indications of the more important phases +of the problem. + +Yet I can well imagine their causing a considerable restlessness in the +minds of some readers. Standards, institutes, university research, +schools of journalism, they will argue, may be all right, but they are +a gray business in a vivid world. They blunt the edge of life; they +leave out of account the finely irresponsible opinion thrown out by +the creative mind; they do not protect the indispensable novelty from +philistinism and oppression. These proposals of yours, they will say, +ignore the fact that such an apparatus of knowledge will in the main +be controlled by the complacent and the traditional, and the execution +will inevitably be illiberal. + +There is force in the indictment. And yet I am convinced that we +shall accomplish more by fighting for truth than by fighting for +our theories. It is a better loyalty. It is a humbler one, but it +is also more irresistible. Above all it is educative. For the real +enemy is ignorance, from which all of us, conservative, liberal, +and revolutionary, suffer. If our effort is concentrated on our +desires,--be it our desire to have and to hold what is good, our desire +to remake peacefully, or our desire to transform suddenly,--we shall +divide hopelessly and irretrievably. We must go back of our opinions to +the neutral facts for unity and refreshment of spirit. To deny this, +it seems to me, is to claim that the mass of men is impervious to +education, and to deny that, is to deny the postulate of democracy, and +to seek salvation in a dictatorship. There is, I am convinced, nothing +but misery and confusion that way. But I am equally convinced that +democracy will degenerate into this dictatorship either of the Right +or of the Left, if it does not become genuinely self-governing. That +means, in terms of public opinion, a resumption of that contact between +beliefs and realities which we have been losing steadily since the +small-town democracy was absorbed into the Great Society. + +The administration of public information toward greater accuracy and +more successful analysis is the highway of liberty. It is, I believe, +a matter of first-rate importance that we should fix this in our +minds. Having done so, we may be able to deal more effectively with +the traps and the lies and the special interests which obstruct the +road and drive us astray. Without a clear conception of what the means +of liberty are, the struggle for free speech and free opinion easily +degenerates into a mere contest of opinion. + +But realization is not the last step, though it is the first. We need +be under no illusion that the stream of news can be purified simply by +pointing out the value of purity. The existing news-structure may be +made serviceable to democracy along the general lines suggested, by the +training of the journalist, and by the development of expert record and +analysis. But while it may be, it will not be, simply by saying that it +ought to be. Those who are now in control have too much at stake, and +they control the source of reform itself. + +Change will come only by the drastic competition of those whose +interests are not represented in the existing news-organization. It +will come only if organized labor and militant liberalism set a pace +which cannot be ignored. Our sanity and, therefore, our safety depend +upon this competition, upon fearless and relentless exposure conducted +by self-conscious groups that are now in a minority. It is for these +groups to understand that the satisfaction of advertising a pet theory +is as nothing compared to the publication of the news. And having +realized it, it is for them to combine their resources and their talent +for the development of an authentic news-service which is invincible +because it supplies what the community is begging for and cannot get. + +All the gallant little sheets expressing particular programmes are +at bottom vanity, and in the end, futility, so long as the reporting +of daily news is left in untrained and biased hands. If we are to +move ahead, we must see a great independent journalism, setting +standards for commercial journalism, like those which the splendid +English coöperative societies are setting for commercial business. An +enormous amount of money is dribbled away in one fashion or another on +little papers, mass-meetings, and what not. If only some considerable +portion of it could be set aside to establish a central international +news-agency, we should make progress. We cannot fight the untruth which +envelops us by parading our opinions. We can do it only by reporting +the facts, and we do not deserve to win if the facts are against us. + +The country is spotted with benevolent foundations of one kind or +another, many of them doing nothing but pay the upkeep of fine +buildings and sinecures. Organized labor spends large sums of money on +politics and strikes which fail because it is impossible to secure a +genuine hearing in public opinion. Could there be a pooling of money +for a news-agency? Not, I imagine, if its object were to further a +cause. But suppose the plan were for a news-service in which editorial +matter was rigorously excluded, and the work was done by men who had +already won the confidence of the public by their independence? Then, +perhaps. + +At any rate, our salvation lies in two things: ultimately, in the +infusion of the news-structure by men with a new training and outlook; +immediately, in the concentration of the independent forces against +the complacency and bad service of the routineers. We shall advance +when we have learned humility; when we have learned to seek the truth, +to reveal it and publish it; when we care more for that than for the +privilege of arguing about ideas in a fog of uncertainty. + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77035 *** diff --git a/77035-h/77035-h.htm b/77035-h/77035-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c6b6c2f --- /dev/null +++ b/77035-h/77035-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2529 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <title> + Liberty and the news | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2,h3 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + +} + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; +} + +hr, hr.chap { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +table { + width:25em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} /* page numbers */ + +blockquote { + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; + margin-left: 8%; + margin-right: 8%; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.right {text-align: right;} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77035 ***</div> + +<div class="center"> +<h1>LIBERTY <i>and the</i> NEWS</h1> +<br> +<br> +BY<br> +<span style="font-size:x-large">WALTER LIPPMANN</span><br> +<br> +<br> +NEW YORK<br> +HARCOURT, BRACE AND HOWE<br> +1920 +</div> + +<hr> + +<div class="center"> +COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY<br> +THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY COMPANY<br> +<br> +COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY<br> +HARCOURT, BRACE AND HOWE, INC. +</div> +<hr> + +<p>In writing this tract I have dared +to believe that many things were possible +because of the personal example +offered to all who practice journalism +by Mr. C. P. Scott, for over forty-five +years editor-in-chief of the <i>Manchester +Guardian</i>. In the light of his career it +cannot seem absurd or remote to think +of freedom and truth in relation to the +news.</p> + +<p>Two of the essays in this volume, “What +Modern Liberty Means” and “Liberty +and the News” were published originally +in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>. I wish to thank +Mr. Ellery Sedgwick for the encouragement +he gave me while writing them, +and for permission to reprint them in +this volume.</p> + +<p class="right"> + W. L. +</p> + +<p> + New York City.<br> + <span style="margin-left: 1.0em;">January 1, 1920.</span> +</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS"> + CONTENTS + </h2> +</div> + + +<table> + <tr> + <td class="tdr" colspan="2" style="font-size:x-small">PAGE</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">Journalism and the Higher Law</td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">What Modern Liberty Means</td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">Liberty and the News</td> + <td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td> + </tr> +</table> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[3]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak"> + JOURNALISM AND THE + HIGHER LAW + </h2> +</div> + + +<p>Volume 1, Number 1, of the first +American newspaper was published +in Boston on September 25, 1690. +It was called <i>Publick Occurrences</i>. The +second issue did not appear because the +Governor and Council suppressed it. +They found that Benjamin Harris, the +editor, had printed “reflections of a very +high nature.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_1_1" href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Even to-day some of his +reflections seem very high indeed. In +his prospectus he had written:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“That something may be done toward the +Curing, or at least the Charming of that +Spirit of Lying, which prevails amongst us, +wherefore nothing shall be entered, but what +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span>we have reason to believe is true, repairing +to the best fountains for our Information. +And when there appears any material mistake +in anything that is collected, it shall be +corrected in the next. Moreover, the Publisher +of these Occurrences is willing to engage, +that whereas, there are many False +Reports, maliciously made, and spread +among us, if any well-minded person will be +at the pains to trace any such false Report, +so far as to find out and Convict the First +Raiser of it, he will in this Paper (unless +just Advice be given to the contrary) expose +the Name of such Person, as A malicious +Raiser of a false Report. It is suppos’d +that none will dislike this Proposal, +but such as intend to be guilty of so villainous +a Crime.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Everywhere to-day men are conscious +that somehow they must deal with questions +more intricate than any that church +or school had prepared them to understand. +Increasingly they know that they +cannot understand them if the facts are +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span>not quickly and steadily available. Increasingly +they are baffled because the +facts are not available; and they are wondering +whether government by consent +can survive in a time when the manufacture +of consent is an unregulated private +enterprise. For in an exact sense +the present crisis of western democracy +is a crisis in journalism.</p> + +<p>I do not agree with those who think +that the sole cause is corruption. There +is plenty of corruption, to be sure, +moneyed control, caste pressure, financial +and social bribery, ribbons, dinner +parties, clubs, petty politics. The speculators +in Russian rubles who lied on the +Paris Bourse about the capture of Petrograd +are not the only example of their +species. And yet corruption does not explain +the condition of modern journalism.</p> + +<p>Mr. Franklin P. Adams wrote recently: +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span>“Now there is much pettiness—and +almost incredible stupidity and ignorance—in +the so-called free press; but +it is the pettiness, etc., common to the +so-called human race—a pettiness found +in musicians, steamfitters, landlords, +poets, and waiters. And when Miss +Lowell [who had made the usual aristocratic +complaint] speaks of the incurable +desire in all American newspapers +to make fun of everything in season and +out, we quarrel again. There is an incurable +desire in American newspapers +to take things much more seriously than +they deserve. Does Miss Lowell read +the ponderous news from Washington? +Does she read the society news? Does +she, we wonder, read the newspapers?”</p> + +<p>Mr. Adams does read them, and when +he writes that the newspapers take things +much more seriously than they deserve, +he has, as the mayor’s wife remarked to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span>the queen, said a mouthful. Since the +war, especially, editors have come to believe +that their highest duty is not to report +but to instruct, not to print news but +to save civilization, not to publish what +Benjamin Harris calls “the Circumstances +of Publique Affairs, both abroad +and at home,” but to keep the nation on +the straight and narrow path. Like the +Kings of England, they have elected +themselves Defenders of the Faith. “For +five years,” says Mr. Cobb of the <i>New +York World</i>, “there has been no free +play of public opinion in the world. +Confronted by the inexorable necessities +of war, governments conscripted public +opinion.... They goose-stepped it. +They taught it to stand at attention and +salute.... It sometimes seems that after +the armistice was signed, millions of +Americans must have taken a vow that +they would never again do any thinking +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span>for themselves. They were willing to +die for their country, but not willing to +think for it.” That minority, which is +proudly prepared to think for it, and +not only prepared, but cocksure that it +alone knows how to think for it, has +adopted the theory that the public should +know what is good for it.</p> + +<p>The work of reporters has thus become +confused with the work of preachers, +revivalists, prophets and agitators. +The current theory of American newspaperdom +is that an abstraction like the +truth and a grace like fairness must be +sacrificed whenever anyone thinks the +necessities of civilization require the sacrifice. +To Archbishop Whately’s dictum +that it matters greatly whether you put +truth in the first place or the second, the +candid expounder of modern journalism +would reply that he put truth second to +what he conceived to be the national interest. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span>Judged simply by their product, +men like Mr. Ochs or Viscount Northcliffe +believe that their respective nations +will perish and civilization decay +unless their idea of what is patriotic is +permitted to temper the curiosity of their +readers.</p> + +<p>They believe that edification is more +important than veracity. They believe +it profoundly, violently, relentlessly. +They preen themselves upon it. To patriotism, +as they define it from day to +day, all other considerations must yield. +That is their pride. And yet what is +this but one more among myriad examples +of the doctrine that the end justifies +the means. A more insidiously misleading +rule of conduct was, I believe, +never devised among men. It was a +plausible rule as long as men believed +that an omniscient and benevolent Providence +taught them what end to seek. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span>But now that men are critically aware +of how their purposes are special to their +age, their locality, their interests, and +their limited knowledge, it is blazing arrogance +to sacrifice hard-won standards +of credibility to some special purpose. It +is nothing but the doctrine that I want +what I want when I want it. Its monuments +are the Inquisition and the invasion +of Belgium. It is the reason given +for almost every act of unreason, the law +invoked whenever lawlessness justifies itself. +At bottom it is nothing but the +anarchical nature of man imperiously +hacking its way through.</p> + +<p>Just as the most poisonous form of +disorder is the mob incited from high +places, the most immoral act the immorality +of a government, so the most destructive +form of untruth is sophistry +and propaganda by those whose profession +it is to report the news. The news +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span>columns are common carriers. When +those who control them arrogate to themselves +the right to determine by their +own consciences what shall be reported +and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable. +Public opinion is blockaded. +For when a people can no longer confidently +repair ‘to the best fountains for +their information,’ then anyone’s guess +and anyone’s rumor, each man’s hope and +each man’s whim becomes the basis of +government. All that the sharpest critics +of democracy have alleged is true, if +there is no steady supply of trustworthy +and relevant news. Incompetence and +aimlessness, corruption and disloyalty, +panic and ultimate disaster, must come +to any people which is denied an assured +access to the facts. No one can manage +anything on pap. Neither can a people.</p> + +<p>Statesmen may devise policies; they +will end in futility, as so many have recently +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span>ended, if the propagandists and +censors can put a painted screen where +there should be a window to the world. +Few episodes in recent history are more +poignant than that of the British Prime +Minister, sitting at the breakfast table +with that morning’s paper before him +protesting that he cannot do the sensible +thing in regard to Russia because a powerful +newspaper proprietor has drugged +the public. That incident is a photograph +of the supreme danger which confronts +popular government. All other +dangers are contingent upon it, for the +news is the chief source of the opinion +by which government now proceeds. So +long as there is interposed between the +ordinary citizen and the facts a news organization +determining by entirely private +and unexamined standards, no matter +how lofty, what he shall know, and +hence what he shall believe, no one will +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span>be able to say that the substance of +democratic government is secure. The +theory of our constitution, says Mr. Justice +Holmes, is that truth is the only +ground upon which men’s wishes safely +can be carried out.⁠<a id="FNanchor_2_2" href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> In so far as those +who purvey the news make of their own +beliefs a higher law than truth, they are +attacking the foundations of our constitutional +system. There can be no higher +law in journalism than to tell the truth +and shame the devil.</p> + +<p>That I have few illusions as to the +difficulty of truthful reporting anyone +can see who reads these pages. If truthfulness +were simply a matter of sincerity +the future would be rather simple. But +the modern news problem is not solely a +question of the newspaperman’s morals. +It is, as I have tried to show in what follows, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span>the intricate result of a civilization +too extensive for any man’s personal +observation. As the problem is manifold, +so must be the remedy. There is +no panacea. But however puzzling the +matter may be, there are some things +that anyone may assert about it, and assert +without fear of contradiction. They +are that there <em>is</em> a problem of the news +which is of absolutely basic importance +to the survival of popular government, +and that the importance of that problem +is not vividly realized nor sufficiently +considered.</p> + +<p>In a few generations it will seem ludicrous +to historians that a people professing +government by the will of the +people should have made no serious effort +to guarantee the news without which +a governing opinion cannot exist. “Is it +possible,” they will ask, “that at the beginning +of the Twentieth Century nations +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span>calling themselves democracies +were content to act on what happened to +drift across their doorsteps; that apart +from a few sporadic exposures and outcries +they made no plans to bring these +common carriers under social control; +that they provided no genuine training +schools for the men upon whose sagacity +they were dependent; above all that their +political scientists went on year after +year writing and lecturing about government +without producing one, one single, +significant study of the process of public +opinion?” And then they will recall the +centuries in which the Church enjoyed +immunity from criticism, and perhaps +they will insist that the news structure of +secular society was not seriously examined +for analogous reasons.</p> + +<p>When they search into the personal +records they will find that among journalists, +as among the clergy, institutionalism +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span>had induced the usual prudence. I +have made no criticism in this book +which is not the shoptalk of reporters +and editors. But only rarely do newspapermen +take the general public into +their confidence. They will have to +sooner or later. It is not enough for +them to struggle against great odds, as +many of them are doing, wearing out +their souls to do a particular assignment +well. The philosophy of the work itself +needs to be discussed; the news about the +news needs to be told. For the news +about the government of the news structure +touches the center of all modern +government.</p> + +<p>They need not be much concerned if +leathery-minded individuals ask What +is Truth of all who plead for the effort +of truth in modern journalism. Jesting +Pilate asked the same question, and he +also would not stay for an answer. No +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span>doubt an organon of news reporting must +wait upon the development of psychology +and political science. But resistance +to the inertias of the profession, heresy +to the institution, and the willingness to +be fired rather than write what you do +not believe, these wait on nothing but +personal courage. And without the assistance +which they will bring from +within the profession itself, democracy +through it will deal with the problem +somehow, will deal with it badly.</p> + +<p>The essays which follow are an attempt +to describe the character of the +problem, and to indicate headings under +which it may be found useful to look +for remedies.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"> +<h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_1_1" href="#FNanchor_1_1" class="label">[1]</a> “History of American Journalism,” James Melvin +Lee, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1917, p. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_2_2" href="#FNanchor_2_2" class="label">[2]</a> Supreme Court of the United States, No. 316, October +term, 1919, Jacob Abrams et al., Plaintiffs in Error vs. +the United States.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="WHAT_MODERN_LIBERTY_MEANS"> + WHAT MODERN LIBERTY MEANS + </h2> +</div> + + +<p>From our recent experience it is +clear that the traditional liberties +of speech and opinion rest on no solid +foundation. At a time when the world +needs above all other things the activity +of generous imaginations and the creative +leadership of planning and inventive +minds, our thinking is shriveled with +panic. Time and energy that should go +to building and restoring are instead consumed +in warding off the pin-pricks of +prejudice and fighting a guerilla war +against misunderstanding and intolerance. +For suppression is felt, not simply +by the scattered individuals who are actually +suppressed. It reaches back into +the steadiest minds, creating tension +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span>everywhere; and the tension of fear produces +sterility. Men cease to say what +they think; and when they cease to say +it, they soon cease to think it. They +think in reference to their critics and not +in reference to the facts. For when +thought becomes socially hazardous, men +spend more time wondering about the +hazard than they do in cultivating their +thought. Yet nothing is more certain +than that mere bold resistance will not +permanently liberate men’s minds. The +problem is not only greater than that, but +different, and the time is ripe for reconsideration. +We have learned that many +of the hard-won rights of man are utterly +insecure. It may be that we cannot +make them secure simply by imitating +the earlier champions of liberty.</p> + +<p>Something important about the human +character was exposed by Plato when, +with the spectacle of Socrates’s death before +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span>him, he founded Utopia on a censorship +stricter than any which exists on +this heavily censored planet. His intolerance +seems strange. But it is really the +logical expression of an impulse that +most of us have not the candor to recognize. +It was the service of Plato to +formulate the dispositions of men in the +shape of ideals, and the surest things we +can learn from him are not what we +ought to do, but what we are inclined +to do. We are peculiarly inclined to +suppress whatever impugns the security +of that to which we have given our allegiance. +If our loyalty is turned to what +exists, intolerance begins at its frontiers; +if it is turned, as Plato’s was, to Utopia, +we shall find Utopia defended with intolerance.</p> + +<p>There are, so far as I can discover, no +absolutists of liberty; I can recall no +doctrine of liberty, which, under the acid +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span>test, does not become contingent upon +some other ideal. The goal is never liberty, +but liberty for something or other. +For liberty is a condition under which +activity takes place, and men’s interests +attach themselves primarily to their activities +and what is necessary to fulfill +them, not to the abstract requirements +of any activity that might be conceived.</p> + +<p>And yet controversialists rarely take +this into account. The battle is fought +with banners on which are inscribed absolute +and universal ideals. They are +not absolute and universal in fact. No +man has ever thought out an absolute or +a universal ideal in politics, for the simple +reason that nobody knows enough, +or can know enough, to do it. But we +all use absolutes, because an ideal which +seems to exist apart from time, space, +and circumstance has a prestige that no +candid avowal of special purpose can +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span>ever have. Looked at from one point of +view universals are part of the fighting +apparatus in men. What they desire +enormously they easily come to call +God’s will, or their nation’s purpose. +Looked at genetically, these idealizations +are probably born in that spiritual reverie +where all men live most of the time. +In reverie there is neither time, space, +nor particular reference, and hope is omnipotent. +This omnipotence, which is +denied to them in action, nevertheless illuminates +activity with a sense of utter +and irresistible value.</p> + +<p>The classic doctrine of liberty consists +of absolutes. It consists of them except +at the critical points where the author +has come into contact with objective difficulties. +Then he introduces into the argument, +somewhat furtively, a reservation +which liquidates its universal meaning +and reduces the exalted plea for +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span>liberty in general to a special argument +for the success of a special purpose.</p> + +<p>There are at the present time, for instance, +no more fervent champions of +liberty than the western sympathizers +with the Russian Soviet government. +Why is it that they are indignant when +Mr. Burleson suppresses a newspaper and +complacent when Lenin does? And, +<i>vice versa</i>, why is it that the anti-Bolshevist +forces in the world are in favor +of restricting constitutional liberty as a +preliminary to establishing genuine liberty +in Russia? Clearly the argument +about liberty has little actual relation to +the existence of it. It is the purpose of +the social conflict, not the freedom of +opinion, that lies close to the heart of the +partisans. The word liberty is a weapon +and an advertisement, but certainly not +an ideal which transcends all special +aims.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span></p> + +<p>If there were any man who believed +in liberty apart from particular purposes, +that man would be a hermit contemplating +all existence with a hopeful +and neutral eye. For him, in the last +analysis, there could be nothing worth +resisting, nothing particularly worth attaining, +nothing particularly worth defending, +not even the right of hermits +to contemplate existence with a cold and +neutral eye. He would be loyal simply +to the possibilities of the human spirit, +even to those possibilities which most +seriously impair its variety and its health. +No such man has yet counted much in +the history of politics. For what every +theorist of liberty has meant is that certain +types of behavior and classes of +opinion hitherto regulated should be +somewhat differently regulated in the +future. What each seems to say is that +opinion and action should be free; that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span>liberty is the highest and most sacred +interest of life. But somewhere each of +them inserts a weasel clause to the effect +that “of course” the freedom granted +shall not be employed too destructively. +It is this clause which checks exuberance +and reminds us that, in spite of appearances, +we are listening to finite men +pleading a special cause.</p> + +<p>Among the English classics none are +more representative than Milton’s <i>Areopagitica</i> +and the essay <i>On Liberty</i> by +John Stuart Mill. Of living men Mr. +Bertrand Russell is perhaps the most +outstanding advocate of liberty. The +three together are a formidable set of witnesses. +Yet nothing is easier than to +draw texts from each which can be cited +either as an argument for absolute liberty +or as an excuse for as much repression +as seems desirable at the moment. +Says Milton:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span></p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Yet if all cannot be of one mind, as who +looks they should be? this doubtles is more +wholsome, more prudent, and more Christian +that many be tolerated, rather than all +compell’d.</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>So much for the generalization. Now +for the qualification which follows immediately +upon it.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>I mean not tolerated Popery, and open +superstition, which as it extirpats all religions +and civill supremacies, so itself should +be extirpat, provided first that all charitable +and compassionat means be used to win and +regain the weak and misled: that also which +is impious or evil absolutely either against +faith or maners no law can possibly permit, +that intends not to unlaw it self: but those +neighboring differences, or rather <em>indifferences</em>, +are what I speak of, whether in some +point of doctrine or of discipline, which +though they may be many, yet need not interrupt +the unity of spirit, if we could but +find among us the bond of peace.</p> +</blockquote> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span></p> + +<p>With this as a text one could set up +an inquisition. Yet it occurs in the noblest +plea for liberty that exists in the +English language. The critical point in +Milton’s thought is revealed by the word +“indifferences.” The area of opinion +which he wished to free comprised the +“neighboring differences” of certain +Protestant sects, and only these where +they were truly ineffective in manners +and morals. Milton, in short, had come +to the conclusion that certain conflicts +of doctrine were sufficiently insignificant +to be tolerated. The conclusion depended +far less upon his notion of the +value of liberty than upon his conception +of God and human nature and the England +of his time. He urged indifference +to things that were becoming indifferent.</p> + +<p>If we substitute the word indifference +for the word liberty, we shall come much +closer to the real intention that lies behind +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span>the classic argument. Liberty is to +be permitted where differences are of no +great moment. It is this definition which +has generally guided practice. In times +when men feel themselves secure, heresy +is cultivated as the spice of life. During +a war liberty disappears as the community +feels itself menaced. When revolution +seems to be contagious, heresy-hunting +is a respectable occupation. In other +words, when men are not afraid, they +are not afraid of ideas; when they are +much afraid, they are afraid of anything +that seems, or can even be made to appear, +seditious. That is why nine-tenths +of the effort to live and let live consists +in proving that the thing we wish to have +tolerated is really a matter of indifference.</p> + +<p>In Mill this truth reveals itself still +more clearly. Though his argument is +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span>surer and completer than Milton’s, the +qualification is also surer and completer.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Such being the reasons which make it imperative +that human beings should be free to +form opinions, and to express their opinions +without reserve; and such the baneful consequences +to the intellectual and through that +to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty +is either conceded or asserted in spite +of prohibition, let us next examine whether +the same reasons do not require that men +should be free to act upon their opinions, to +carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, +either moral or physical, from their +fellow men, so long as it is at their own risk +and peril. <em>This last proviso is of course indispensable.</em> +No one pretends that actions +should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, +<em>even opinions lose their immunity</em> when +the circumstances in which they are expressed +are such as to constitute their expression a +positive instigation to some mischievous act.</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>“At their own risk and peril.” In +other words, at the risk of eternal damnation. +The premise from which Mill +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span>argued was that many opinions then under +the ban of society were of no interest +to society, and ought therefore not to be +interfered with. The orthodoxy with +which he was at war was chiefly theocratic. +It assumed that a man’s opinions +on cosmic affairs might endanger his +personal salvation and make him a dangerous +member of society. Mill did not +believe in the theological view, did not +fear damnation, and was convinced that +morality did not depend upon the religious +sanction. In fact, he was convinced +that a more reasoned morality +could be formed by laying aside theological +assumptions. “But no one pretends +that actions should be as free as opinions.” +The plain truth is that Mill did +not believe that much action would result +from the toleration of those opinions +in which he was most interested.</p> + +<p>Political heresy occupied the fringe of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span>his attention, and he uttered only the +most casual comments. So incidental +are they, so little do they impinge on his +mind, that the arguments of this staunch +apostle of liberty can be used honestly, +and in fact are used, to justify the bulk +of the suppressions which have recently +occurred. “Even opinions lose their immunity, +<em>when the circumstances</em> in which +they are expressed are such as to constitute +their expression a positive instigation +to some mischievious act.” Clearly +there is no escape here for Debs or Haywood +or obstructors of Liberty Loans. +The argument used is exactly the one +employed in sustaining the conviction of +Debs.</p> + +<p>In corroboration Mill’s single concrete +instance may be cited: “An opinion that +corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or +that private property is robbery, ought +to be unmolested when simply circulated +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span>through the press, but may justly incur +punishment when delivered orally to an +excited mob assembled before the house +of a corn dealer, or when handed about +among the same mob in the form of a +placard.”</p> + +<p>Clearly Mill’s theory of liberty wore +a different complexion when he considered +opinions which might directly affect +social order. Where the stimulus of +opinion upon action was effective he +could say with entire complacency, “The +liberty of the individual must be thus far +limited; he must not make himself a +nuisance to other people.” Because Mill +believed this, it is entirely just to infer +that the distinction drawn between a +speech or placard and publication in the +press would soon have broken down for +Mill had he lived at a time when the +press really circulated and the art of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span>type-display had made a newspaper +strangely like a placard.</p> + +<p>On first acquaintance no man would +seem to go further than Mr. Bertrand +Russell in loyalty to what he calls “the +unfettered development of all the instincts +that build up life and fill it with +mental delights.” He calls these instincts +“creative”; and against them he +sets off the “possessive impulses.” These, +he says, should be restricted by “a public +authority, a repository of practically +irresistible force whose function should +be primarily to repress the private use +of force.” Where Milton said no “tolerated +Popery,” Mr. Russell says, no tolerated +“possessive impulses.” Surely he +is open to the criticism that, like every +authoritarian who has preceded him, he +is interested in the unfettered development +of only that which seems good to +him. Those who think that “enlightened +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span>selfishness” produces social harmony will +tolerate more of the possessive impulses, +and will be inclined to put certain of +Mr. Russell’s creative impulses under +lock and key.</p> + +<p>The moral is, not that Milton, Mill, +and Bertrand Russell are inconsistent, or +that liberty is to be obtained by arguing +for it without qualifications. The impulse +to what we call liberty is as strong +in these three men as it is ever likely to +be in our society. The moral is of another +kind. It is that the traditional +core of liberty, namely, the notion of indifference, +is too feeble and unreal a doctrine +to protect the purpose of liberty, +which is the furnishing of a healthy environment +in which human judgment +and inquiry can most successfully organize +human life. Too feeble, because in +time of stress nothing is easier than to +insist, and by insistence to convince, that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span>tolerated indifference is no longer tolerable +because it has ceased to be indifferent.</p> + +<p>It is clear that in a society where public +opinion has become decisive, nothing +that counts in the formation of it +can really be a matter of indifference. +When I say “can be,” I am speaking +literally. What men believed about the +constitution of heaven became a matter +of indifference when heaven disappeared +in metaphysics; but what they believe +about property, government, conscription, +taxation, the origins of the late war, +or the origins of the Franco-Prussian +War, or the distribution of Latin culture +in the vicinity of copper mines, constitutes +the difference between life and +death, prosperity and misfortune, and it +will never on this earth be tolerated as +indifferent, or not interfered with, no +matter how many noble arguments are +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span>made for liberty, or how many martyrs +give their lives for it. If widespread +tolerance of opposing views is to be +achieved in modern society, it will not +be simply by fighting the Debs’ cases +through the courts, and certainly not by +threatening to upset those courts if they +do not yield to the agitation. The task +is fundamentally of another order, requiring +other methods and other theories.</p> + +<p>The world about which each man is +supposed to have opinions has become +so complicated as to defy his powers of +understanding. What he knows of events +that matter enormously to him, the purposes +of governments, the aspirations of +peoples, the struggle of classes, he knows +at second, third, or fourth hand. He +cannot go and see for himself. Even the +things that are near to him have become +too involved for his judgment. I know +of no man, even among those who devote +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span>all of their time to watching public affairs, +who can even pretend to keep +track, at the same time, of his city government, +his state government, Congress, +the departments, the industrial situation, +and the rest of the world. What men +who make the study of politics a vocation +cannot do, the man who has an hour +a day for newspapers and talk cannot +possibly hope to do. He must seize +catchwords and headlines or nothing.</p> + +<p>This vast elaboration of the subject-matter +of politics is the root of the whole +problem. News comes from a distance; +it comes helter-skelter, in inconceivable +confusion; it deals with matters that are +not easily understood; it arrives and is +assimilated by busy and tired people who +must take what is given to them. Any +lawyer with a sense of evidence knows +how unreliable such information must +necessarily be.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span></p> + +<p>The taking of testimony in a trial is +hedged about with a thousand precautions +derived from long experience of +the fallibility of the witness and the +prejudices of the jury. We call this, and +rightly, a fundamental phase of human +liberty. But in public affairs the stake +is infinitely greater. It involves the lives +of millions, and the fortune of everybody. +The jury is the whole community, +not even the qualified voters alone. The +jury is everybody who creates public +sentiment—chattering gossips, unscrupulous +liars, congenital liars, feeble-minded +people, prostitute minds, corrupting +agents. To this jury any testimony is +submitted, is submitted in any form, by +any anonymous person, with no test of +reliability, no test of credibility, and no +penalty for perjury. If I lie in a lawsuit +involving the fate of my neighbor’s cow, +I can go to jail. But if I lie to a million +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span>readers in a matter involving war and +peace, I can lie my head off, and, if I +choose the right series of lies, be entirely +irresponsible. Nobody will punish me if +I lie about Japan, for example. I can +announce that every Japanese valet is a +reservist, and every Japanese art store a +mobilization center. I am immune. +And if there should be hostilities with +Japan, the more I lied the more popular +I should be. If I asserted that the Japanese +secretly drank the blood of children, +that Japanese women were unchaste, +that the Japanese were really not +a branch of the human race after all, I +guarantee that most of the newspapers +would print it eagerly, and that I could +get a hearing in churches all over the +country. And all this for the simple +reason that the public, when it is dependent +on testimony and protected by +no rules of evidence, can act only on the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span>excitement of its pugnacities and its +hopes.</p> + +<p>The mechanism of the news-supply +has developed without plan, and there is +no one point in it at which one can fix +the responsibility for truth. The fact is +that the subdivision of labor is now accompanied +by the subdivision of the +news-organization. At one end of it is +the eye-witness, at the other, the reader. +Between the two is a vast, expensive +transmitting and editing apparatus. This +machine works marvelously well at times, +particularly in the rapidity with which +it can report the score of a game or a +transatlantic flight, or the death of a +monarch, or the result of an election. +But where the issue is complex, as for +example in the matter of the success of +a policy, or the social conditions among +a foreign people,—that is to say, where +the real answer is neither yes or no, but +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span>subtle, and a matter of balanced evidence,—the +subdivision of the labor involved +in the report causes no end of +derangement, misunderstanding, and +even misrepresentation.</p> + +<p>Thus the number of eye-witnesses capable +of honest statement is inadequate +and accidental. Yet the reporter making +up his news is dependent upon the +eye-witnesses. They may be actors in the +event. Then they can hardly be expected +to have perspective. Who, for example, +if he put aside his own likes and dislikes +would trust a Bolshevik’s account of +what exists in Soviet Russia or an exiled +Russian prince’s story of what exists in +Siberia? Sitting just across the frontier, +say in Stockholm, how is a reporter to +write dependable news when his witnesses +consist of <i>emigrés</i> or Bolshevist +agents?</p> + +<p>At the Peace Conference, news was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span>given out by the agents of the conferees +and the rest leaked through those who +were clamoring at the doors of the Conference. +Now the reporter, if he is to +earn his living, must nurse his personal +contacts with the eye-witnesses and privileged +informants. If he is openly hostile +to those in authority, he will cease +to be a reporter unless there is an opposition +party in the inner circle who can +feed him news. Failing that, he will +know precious little of what is going on.</p> + +<p>Most people seem to believe that, when +they meet a war correspondent or a special +writer from the Peace Conference, +they have seen a man who has seen the +things he wrote about. Far from it. +Nobody, for example, saw this war. +Neither the men in the trenches nor the +commanding general. The men saw +their trenches, their billets, sometimes +they saw an enemy trench, but nobody, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span>unless it be the aviators, saw a battle. +What the correspondents saw, occasionally, +was the terrain over which a battle +had been fought; but what they reported +day by day was what they were told at +press headquarters, and of that only what +they were allowed to tell.</p> + +<p>At the Peace Conference the reporters +were allowed to meet periodically the +four least important members of the +Commission, men who themselves had +considerable difficulty in keeping track +of things, as any reporter who was present +will testify. This was supplemented +by spasmodic personal interviews with +the commissioners, their secretaries, their +secretaries’ secretaries, other newspaper +men, and confidential representatives of +the President, who stood between him +and the impertinences of curiosity. This +and the French press, than which there +is nothing more censored and inspired, a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span>local English trade-journal of the expatriates, +the gossip of the Crillon lobby, +the Majestic, and the other official hotels, +constituted the source of the news +upon which American editors and the +American people have had to base one +of the most difficult judgments of their +history. I should perhaps add that there +were a few correspondents occupying +privileged positions with foreign governments. +They wore ribbons in their button-holes +to prove it. They were in +many ways the most useful correspondents +because they always revealed to the +trained reader just what it was that their +governments wished America to believe.</p> + +<p>The news accumulated by the reporter +from his witnesses has to be selected, if +for no other reason than that the cable +facilities are limited. At the cable office +several varieties of censorship intervene. +The legal censorship in Europe is political +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span>as well as military, and both +words are elastic. It has been applied, +not only to the substance of the news, but +to the mode of presentation, and even to +the character of the type and the position +on the page. But the real censorship +on the wires is the cost of transmission. +This in itself is enough to limit any expensive +competition or any significant independence. +The big Continental news +agencies are subsidized. Censorship +operates also through congestion and the +resultant need of a system of priority. +Congestion makes possible good and bad +service, and undesirable messages are not +infrequently served badly.</p> + +<p>When the report does reach the editor, +another series of interventions occurs. +The editor is a man who may +know all about something, but he can +hardly be expected to know all about +everything. Yet he has to decide the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span>question which is of more importance +than any other in the formation of opinions, +the question where attention is to +be directed. In a newspaper the heads +are the foci of attention, the odd corners +the fringe; and whether one aspect +of the news or another appears in the +center or at the periphery makes all the +difference in the world. The news of +the day as it reaches the newspaper office +is an incredible medley of fact, propaganda, +rumor, suspicion, clues, hopes, +and fears, and the task of selecting and +ordering that news is one of the truly +sacred and priestly offices in a democracy. +For the newspaper is in all literalness +the bible of democracy, the book +out of which a people determines its conduct. +It is the only serious book most +people read. It is the only book they +read every day. Now the power to determine +each day what shall seem important +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span>and what shall be neglected is a +power unlike any that has been exercised +since the Pope lost his hold on the secular +mind.</p> + +<p>The ordering is not done by one man, +but by a host of men, who are on the +whole curiously unanimous in their selection +and in their emphasis. Once you +know the party and social affiliations of +a newspaper, you can predict with considerable +certainty the perspective in +which the news will be displayed. This +perspective is by no means altogether +deliberate. Though the editor is ever so +much more sophisticated than all but a +minority of his readers, his own sense of +relative importance is determined by +rather standardized constellations of +ideas. He very soon comes to believe +that his habitual emphasis is the only +possible one.</p> + +<p>Why the editor is possessed by a particular +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span>set of ideas is a difficult question +in social psychology, of which no adequate +analysis has been made. But we +shall not be far wrong if we say that he +deals with the news in reference to the +prevailing <i>mores</i> of his social group. +These <i>mores</i> are of course in a large +measure the product of what previous +newspapers have said; and experience +shows that, in order to break out of this +circle, it has been necessary at various +times to create new forms of journalism, +such as the national monthly, the critical +weekly, the circular, the paid advertisements +of ideas, in order to change the +emphasis which had become obsolete and +habit-ridden.</p> + +<p>Into this extremely refractory, and I +think increasingly disserviceable mechanism, +there has been thrown, especially +since the outbreak of war, another monkey-wrench—propaganda. +The word, of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span>course, covers a multitude of sins and a +few virtues. The virtues can be easily +separated out, and given another name, +either advertisement or advocacy. Thus, +if the National Council of Belgravia +wishes to publish a magazine out of its +own funds, under its own imprint, advocating +the annexation of Thrums, no one +will object. But if, in support of that +advocacy, it gives to the press stories that +are lies about the atrocities committed +in Thrums; or, worse still, if those stories +seem to come from Geneva, or Amsterdam, +not from the press-service of the +National Council of Belgravia, then Belgravia +is conducting propaganda. If, +after arousing a certain amount of interest +in itself, Belgravia then invites a +carefully selected correspondent, or perhaps +a labor leader, to its capital, puts +him up at the best hotel, rides him +around in limousines, fawns on him at +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span>banquets, lunches with him very confidentially, +and then puts him through a +conducted tour so that he shall see just +what will create the desired impression, +then again Belgravia is conducting propaganda. +Or if Belgravia happens to +possess the greatest trombone-player in +the world, and if she sends him over to +charm the wives of influential husbands, +Belgravia is, in a less objectionable way, +perhaps, committing propaganda, and +making fools of the husbands.</p> + +<p>Now, the plain fact is that out of the +troubled areas of the world the public +receives practically nothing that is not +propaganda. Lenin and his enemies control +all the news there is of Russia, and +no court of law would accept any of the +testimony as valid in a suit to determine +the possession of a donkey. I am writing +many months after the Armistice. +The Senate is at this moment engaged +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span>in debating the question whether it will +guarantee the frontiers of Poland; but +what we learn of Poland we learn from +the Polish Government and the Jewish +Committee. Judgment on the vexed issues +of Europe is simply out of the question +for the average American; and the +more cocksure he is, the more certainly +is he the victim of some propaganda.</p> + +<p>These instances are drawn from foreign +affairs, but the difficulty at home, +although less flagrant, is nevertheless +real. Theodore Roosevelt, and Leonard +Wood after him, have told us to think +nationally. It is not easy. It is easy +to parrot what those people say who live +in a few big cities and who have constituted +themselves the only true and authentic +voice of America. But beyond +that it is difficult. I live in New York +and I have not the vaguest idea what +Brooklyn is interested in. It is possible, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span>with effort, much more effort than most +people can afford to give, for me to know +what a few organized bodies like the +Non-Partisan League, the National Security +League, the American Federation +of Labor, and the Republican National +Committee are up to; but what the unorganized +workers, and the unorganized +farmers, the shopkeepers, the local bankers +and boards of trade are thinking and +feeling, no one has any means of knowing, +except perhaps in a vague way +at election time. To think nationally +means, at least, to take into account the +major interests and needs and desires of +this continental population; and for that +each man would need a staff of secretaries, +traveling agents, and a very expensive +press-clipping bureau.</p> + +<p>We do not think nationally because +the facts that count are not systematically +reported and presented in a form +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span>we can digest. Our most abysmal ignorance +occurs where we deal with the immigrant. +If we read his press at all, it +is to discover “Bolshevism” in it and to +blacken all immigrants with suspicion. +For his culture and his aspirations, for +his high gifts of hope and variety, we +have neither eyes nor ears. The immigrant +colonies are like holes in the road +which we never notice until we trip over +them. Then, because we have no current +information and no background of +facts, we are, of course, the undiscriminating +objects of any agitator who +chooses to rant against “foreigners.”</p> + +<p>Now, men who have lost their grip +upon the relevant facts of their environment +are the inevitable victims of +agitation and propaganda. The quack, +the charlatan, the jingo, and the terrorist, +can flourish only where the audience is +deprived of independent access to information. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span>But where all news comes at +second-hand, where all the testimony is +uncertain, men cease to respond to truths, +and respond simply to opinions. The +environment in which they act is not the +realities themselves, but the pseudo-environment +of reports, rumors, and +guesses. The whole reference of thought +comes to be what somebody asserts, not +what actually is. Men ask, not whether +such and such a thing occurred in Russia, +but whether Mr. Raymond Robins +is at heart more friendly to the Bolsheviki +than Mr. Jerome Landfield. And +so, since they are deprived of any trustworthy +means of knowing what is really +going on, since everything is on the plane +of assertion and propaganda, they believe +whatever fits most comfortably with +their prepossessions.</p> + +<p>That this breakdown of the means of +public knowledge should occur at a time +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span>of immense change is a compounding of +the difficulty. From bewilderment to +panic is a short step, as everyone knows +who has watched a crowd when danger +threatens. At the present time a nation +easily acts like a crowd. Under the influence +of headlines and panicky print, +the contagion of unreason can easily +spread through a settled community. For +when the comparatively recent and unstable +nervous organization which makes +us capable of responding to reality as it +is, and not as we should wish it, is baffled +over a continuing period of time, the +more primitive but much stronger instincts +are let loose.</p> + +<p>War and Revolution, both of them +founded on censorship and propaganda, +are the supreme destroyers of realistic +thinking, because the excess of danger +and the fearful overstimulation of passion +unsettle disciplined behavior. Both +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span>breed fanatics of all kinds, men who, in +the words of Mr. Santayana, have redoubled +their effort when they have forgotten +their aim. The effort itself has +become the aim. Men live in their effort, +and for a time find great exaltation. +They seek stimulation of their effort +rather than direction of it. That is why +both in war and revolution there seems +to operate a kind of Gresham’s Law of +the emotions, in which leadership passes +by a swift degradation from a Mirabeau +to a Robespierre; and in war, from a +high-minded statesmanship to the depths +of virulent, hating jingoism.</p> + +<p>The cardinal fact always is the loss of +contact with objective information. Public +as well as private reason depends +upon it. Not what somebody says, not +what somebody wishes were true, but +what is so beyond all our opining, constitutes +the touchstone of our sanity. And +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span>a society which lives at second-hand will +commit incredible follies and countenance +inconceivable brutalities if that +contact is intermittent and untrustworthy. +Demagoguery is a parasite that +flourishes where discrimination fails, +and only those who are at grips with +things themselves are impervious to it. +For, in the last analysis, the demagogue, +whether of the Right or the Left, is, consciously +or unconsciously an undetected +liar.</p> + +<p>Many students of politics have concluded +that, because public opinion was +unstable, the remedy lay in making government +as independent of it as possible. +The theorists of representative government +have argued persistently from this +premise against the believers in direct +legislation. But it appears now that, +while they have been making their case +against direct legislation, rather successfully +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span>it seems to me, they have failed +sufficiently to notice the increasing malady +of representative government.</p> + +<p>Parliamentary action is becoming notoriously +ineffective. In America certainly +the concentration of power in the +Executive is out of all proportion either +to the intentions of the Fathers or to the +orthodox theory of representative government. +The cause is fairly clear. Congress +is an assemblage of men selected +for local reasons from districts. It brings +to Washington a more or less accurate +sense of the superficial desires of its constituency. +In Washington it is supposed +to think nationally and internationally. +But for that task its equipment and its +sources of information are hardly better +than that of any other reader of the newspaper. +Except for its spasmodic investigating +committees, Congress has no particular +way of informing itself. But the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span>Executive has. The Executive is an elaborate +hierarchy reaching to every part of +the nation and to all parts of the world. +It has an independent machinery, fallible +and not too truthworthy, of course, but +nevertheless a machinery of intelligence. +It can be informed and it can act, whereas +Congress is not informed and cannot +act.</p> + +<p>Now the popular theory of representative +government is that the representatives +have the information and therefore +create the policy which the executive administers. +The more subtle theory is that +the executive initiates the policy which +the legislature corrects in accordance +with popular wisdom. But when the legislature +is haphazardly informed, this +amounts to very little, and the people +themselves prefer to trust the executive +which knows, rather than the Congress +which is vainly trying to know. The result +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span>has been the development of a kind +of government which has been harshly +described as plebiscite autocracy, or government +by newspapers. Decisions in +the modern state tend to be made by the +interaction, not of Congress and the executive, +but of public opinion and the +executive.</p> + +<p>Public opinion for this purpose finds +itself collected about special groups +which act as extra-legal organs of government. +There is a labor nucleus, a +farmers’ nucleus, a prohibition nucleus, +a National Security League nucleus, and +so on. These groups conduct a continual +electioneering campaign upon the unformed, +exploitable mass of public opinion. +Being special groups, they have +special sources of information, and what +they lack in the way of information is +often manufactured. These conflicting +pressures beat upon the executive departments +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span>and upon Congress, and formulate +the conduct of the government. The +government itself acts in reference to +these groups far more than in reference +to the district congressmen. So politics +as it is now played consists in coercing +and seducing the representative by the +threat and the appeal of these unofficial +groups. Sometimes they are the allies, +sometimes the enemies, of the party in +power, but more and more they are the +energy of public affairs. Government +tends to operate by the impact of controlled +opinion upon administration. +This shift in the locus of sovereignty has +placed a premium upon the manufacture +of what is usually called consent. No +wonder that the most powerful newspaper +proprietor in the English-speaking +world declined a mere government +post.</p> + +<p>No wonder, too, that the protection of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span>the sources of its opinion is the basic +problem of democracy. Everything else +depends upon it. Without protection +against propaganda, without standards +of evidence, without criteria of emphasis, +the living substance of all popular decision +is exposed to every prejudice and +to infinite exploitation. That is why I +have argued that the older doctrine of +liberty was misleading. It did not assume +a public opinion that governs. Essentially +it demanded toleration of opinions +that were, as Milton said, indifferent. +It can guide us little in a world +where opinion is sensitive and decisive.</p> + +<p>The axis of the controversy needs to +be shifted. The attempt to draw fine +distinctions between “liberty” and “license” +is no doubt part of the day’s work, +but it is fundamentally a negative part. +It consists in trying to make opinion responsible +to prevailing social standards, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span>whereas the really important thing is to +try and make opinion increasingly responsible +to the facts. There can be no +liberty for a community which lacks the +information by which to detect lies. +Trite as the conclusion may at first seem, +it has, I believe, immense practical consequences, +and may perhaps offer an escape +from the logomachy into which the +contests of liberty so easily degenerate.</p> + +<p>It may be bad to suppress a particular +opinion, but the really deadly thing +is to suppress the news. In time of great +insecurity, certain opinions acting on unstable +minds may cause infinite disaster. +Knowing that such opinions necessarily +originate in slender evidence, that they +are propelled more by prejudice from +the rear than by reference to realities, +it seems to me that to build the case for +liberty upon the dogma of their unlimited +prerogatives is to build it upon the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span>poorest foundation. For, even though +we grant that the world is best served by +the liberty of all opinion, the plain fact +is that men are too busy and too much +concerned to fight more than spasmodically +for such liberty. When freedom of +opinion is revealed as freedom of error, +illusion, and misinterpretation, it is virtually +impossible to stir up much interest +in its behalf. It is the thinnest of all +abstractions and an over-refinement of +mere intellectualism. But people, wide +circles of people, are aroused when their +curiosity is baulked. The desire to know, +the dislike of being deceived and made +game of, is a really powerful motive, +and it is that motive that can best be enlisted +in the cause of freedom.</p> + +<p>What, for example, was the one most +general criticism of the work of the +Peace Conference? It was that the covenants +were not openly arrived at. This +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span>fact stirred Republican Senators, British +Labor, the whole gamut of parties from +the Right to the Left. And in the last +analysis lack of information about the +Conference <em>was</em> the origin of its difficulties. +Because of the secrecy endless +suspicion was aroused; because of it the +world seemed to be presented with a +series of accomplished facts which it +could not reject and did not wish altogether +to accept. It was lack of information +which kept public opinion from +affecting the negotiations at the time +when intervention would have counted +most and cost least. Publicity occurred +when the covenants were arrived at, with +all the emphasis on the <em>at</em>. This is what +the Senate objected to, and this is what +alienated much more liberal opinion +than the Senate represents.</p> + +<p>In a passage quoted previously in this +essay, Milton said that differences of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span>opinion, “which though they may be +many, yet need not interrupt the unity +of spirit, if we could but find among us +the bond of peace.” There is but one +kind of unity possible in a world as diverse +as ours. It is unity of method, +rather than of aim; the unity of the disciplined +experiment. There is but one +bond of peace that is both permanent +and enriching: the increasing knowledge +of the world in which experiment occurs. +With a common intellectual method +and a common area of valid fact, +differences may become a form of coöperation +and cease to be an irreconcilable +antagonism.</p> + +<p>That, I think, constitutes the meaning +of freedom for us. We cannot successfully +define liberty, or accomplish it, by +a series of permissions and prohibitions. +For that is to ignore the content of opinion +in favor of its form. Above all, it +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span>is an attempt to define liberty of opinion +in terms of opinion. It is a circular and +sterile logic. A useful definition of liberty +is obtainable only by seeking the +principle of liberty in the main business +of human life, that is to say, in the process +by which men educate their response +and learn to control their environment. +In this view liberty is the name we give +to measures by which we protect and increase +the veracity of the information +upon which we act.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="LIBERTY_AND_THE_NEWS"> + LIBERTY AND THE NEWS + </h2> +</div> + + +<p>The debates about liberty have +hitherto all been attempts to determine +just when in the series from +Right to Left the censorship should intervene. +In the preceding paper I ventured +to ask whether these attempts do +not turn on a misconception of the problem. +The conclusion reached was that, +in dealing with liberty of opinion, we +were dealing with a subsidiary phase of +the whole matter; that, so long as we +were content to argue about the privileges +and immunities of opinion, we were +missing the point and trying to make +bricks without straw. We should never +succeed even in fixing a standard of tolerance +for opinions, if we concentrated +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span>all our attention on the opinions. For +they are derived, not necessarily by reason, +to be sure, but somehow, from the +stream of news that reaches the public, +and the protection of that stream is the +critical interest in a modern state. In +going behind opinion to the information +which it exploits, and in making the validity +of the news our ideal, we shall be +fighting the battle where it is really being +fought. We shall be protecting for +the public interest that which all the +special interests in the world are most +anxious to corrupt.</p> + +<p>As the sources of the news are protected, +as the information they furnish +becomes accessible and usable, as our +capacity to read that information is educated, +the old problem of tolerance will +wear a new aspect. Many questions +which seem hopelessly insoluble now will +cease to seem important enough to be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span>worth solving. Thus the advocates of a +larger freedom always argue that true +opinions will prevail over error; their +opponents always claim that you can fool +most of the people most of the time. +Both statements are true, but both are +half-truths. True opinions can prevail +only if the facts to which they refer are +known; if they are not known, false ideas +are just as effective as true ones, if not +a little more effective.</p> + +<p>The sensible procedure in matters affecting +the liberty of opinion would be +to ensure as impartial an investigation +of the facts as is humanly possible. But +it is just this investigation that is denied +us. It is denied us, because we are dependent +upon the testimony of anonymous +and untrained and prejudiced witnesses; +because the complexity of the +relevant facts is beyond the scope of our +hurried understanding; and finally, because +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span>the process we call education fails +so lamentably to educate the sense of evidence +or the power of penetrating to the +controlling center of a situation. The +task of liberty, therefore, falls roughly +under three heads, protection of the +sources of the news, organization of the +news so as to make it comprehensible, +and education of human response.</p> + +<p>We need, first, to know what can be +done with the existing news-structure, in +order to correct its grosser evils. How +far is it useful to go in fixing personal +responsibility for the truthfulness of +news? Much further, I am inclined to +think, than we have ever gone. We +ought to know the names of the whole +staff of every periodical. While it is not +necessary, or even desirable, that each +article should be signed, each article +should be documented, and false documentation +should be illegal. An item of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span>news should always state whether it is +received from one of the great news-agencies, +or from a reporter, or from a +press bureau. Particular emphasis +should be put on marking news supplied +by press bureaus, whether they are labeled +“Geneva,” or “Stockholm,” or “El +Paso.”</p> + +<p>One wonders next whether anything +can be devised to meet that great evil of +the press, the lie which, once under way, +can never be tracked down. The more +scrupulous papers will, of course, print +a retraction when they have unintentionally +injured someone; but the retraction +rarely compensates the victim. The law +of libel is a clumsy and expensive instrument, +and rather useless to private individuals +or weak organizations because +of the gentlemen’s agreement which obtains +in the newspaper world. After all, +the remedy for libel is not money damages, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span>but an undoing of the injury. +Would it be possible then to establish +courts of honor in which publishers +should be compelled to meet their accusers +and, if found guilty of misrepresentation, +ordered to publish the correction +in the particular form and with +the prominence specified by the finding +of the court? I do not know. Such +courts might prove to be a great nuisance, +consuming time and energy and attention, +and offering too free a field for +individuals with a persecution mania.</p> + +<p>Perhaps a procedure could be devised +which would eliminate most of these inconveniences. +Certainly it would be a +great gain if the accountability of publishers +could be increased. They exercise +more power over the individual than +is healthy, as everybody knows who has +watched the yellow press snooping at +keyholes and invading the privacy of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span>helpless men and women. Even more +important than this, is the utterly reckless +power of the press in dealing with +news vitally affecting the friendship of +peoples. In a Court of Honor, possible +perhaps only in Utopia, voluntary associations +working for decent relations +with other peoples might hale the jingo +and the subtle propagandist before a tribunal, +to prove the reasonable truth of +his assertion or endure the humiliation +of publishing prominently a finding +against his character.</p> + +<p>This whole subject is immensely difficult, +and full of traps. It would be well +worth an intensive investigation by a +group of publishers, lawyers, and students +of public affairs. Because in some +form or other the next generation will +attempt to bring the publishing business +under greater social control. There is +everywhere an increasingly angry disillusionment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span>about the press, a growing +sense of being baffled and misled; and +wise publishers will not pooh-pooh these +omens. They might well note the history +of prohibition, where a failure to +work out a programme of temperance +brought about an undiscriminating taboo. +The regulation of the publishing business +is a subtle and elusive matter, and +only by an early and sympathetic effort +to deal with great evils can the more sensible +minds retain their control. If publishers +and authors themselves do not +face the facts and attempt to deal with +them, some day Congress, in a fit of temper, +egged on by an outraged public +opinion, will operate on the press with +an ax. For somehow the community +must find a way of making the men who +publish news accept responsibility for an +honest effort not to misrepresent the +facts.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span></p> + +<p>But the phrase “honest effort” does not +take us very far. The problem here is +not different from that which we begin +dimly to apprehend in the field of government +and business administration. +The untrained amateur may mean well, +but he knows not how to do well. Why +should he? What are the qualifications +for being a surgeon? A certain minimum +of special training. What are the +qualifications for operating daily on the +brain and heart of a nation? None. Go +some time and listen to the average run +of questions asked in interviews with +Cabinet officers—or anywhere else.</p> + +<p>I remember one reporter who was detailed +to the Peace Conference by a leading +news-agency. He came around every +day for “news.” It was a time when +Central Europe seemed to be disintegrating, +and great doubt existed as to +whether governments would be found +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span>with which to sign a peace. But all that +this “reporter” wanted to know was +whether the German fleet, then safely interned +at Scapa Flow, was going to be +sunk in the North Sea. He insisted +every day on knowing that. For him it +was the German fleet or nothing. Finally, +he could endure it no longer. So +he anticipated Admiral Reuther and announced, +in a dispatch to his home papers, +that the fleet would be sunk. And +when I say that a million American +adults learned all that they ever learned +about the Peace Conference through this +reporter, I am stating a very moderate +figure.</p> + +<p>He suggests the delicate question +raised by the schools of journalism: how +far can we go in turning newspaper enterprise +from a haphazard trade into a +disciplined profession? Quite far, I +imagine, for it is altogether unthinkable +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span>that a society like ours should remain +forever dependent upon untrained accidental +witnesses. It is no answer to say +that there have been in the past, and that +there are now, first-rate correspondents. +Of course there are. Men like Brailsford, +Oulahan, Gibbs, Lawrence, Swope, +Strunsky, Draper, Hard, Dillon, Lowry, +Levine, Ackerman, Ray Stannard Baker, +Frank Cobb, and William Allen White, +know their way about in this world. But +they are eminences on a rather flat plateau. +The run of the news is handled +by men of much smaller caliber. It is +handled by such men because reporting +is not a dignified profession for which +men will invest the time and cost of an +education, but an underpaid, insecure, +anonymous form of drudgery, conducted +on catch-as-catch-can principles. Merely +to talk about the reporter in terms of his +real importance to civilization will make +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span>newspaper men laugh. Yet reporting is +a post of peculiar honor. Observation +must precede every other activity, and +the public observer (that is, the reporter) +is a man of critical value. No amount +of money or effort spent in fitting the +right men for this work could possibly +be wasted, for the health of society depends +upon the quality of the information +it receives.</p> + +<p>Do our schools of journalism, the few +we have, make this kind of training their +object, or are they trade-schools designed +to fit men for higher salaries in the existing +structure? I do not presume to +answer the question, nor is the answer of +great moment when we remember how +small a part these schools now play in +actual journalism. But it is important +to know whether it would be worth while +to endow large numbers of schools on +the model of those now existing, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span>make their diplomas a necessary condition +for the practice of reporting. It is +worth considering. Against the idea lies +the fact that it is difficult to decide just +what reporting is—where in the whole +mass of printed matter it begins and ends. +No one would wish to set up a closed +guild of reporters and thus exclude invaluable +casual reporting and writing. +If there is anything in the idea at all, +it would apply only to the routine service +of the news through large organizations.</p> + +<p>Personally I should distrust too much +ingenuity of this kind, on the ground +that, while it might correct certain evils, +the general tendency would be to turn +the control of the news over to unenterprising +stereotyped minds soaked in the +traditions of a journalism always ten +years out of date. The better course is +to avoid the deceptive short cuts, and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span>make up our minds to send out into reporting +a generation of men who will by +sheer superiority, drive the incompetents +out of business. That means two things. +It means a public recognition of the dignity +of such a career, so that it will cease +to be the refuge of the vaguely talented. +With this increase of prestige must go a +professional training in journalism in +which the ideal of objective testimony +is cardinal. The cynicism of the trade +needs to be abandoned, for the true patterns +of the journalistic apprentice are +not the slick persons who scoop the news, +but the patient and fearless men of science +who have labored to see what the +world really is. It does not matter that +the news is not susceptible of mathematical +statement. In fact, just because news +is complex and slippery, good reporting +requires the exercise of the highest of the +scientific virtues. They are the habits of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span>ascribing no more credibility to a statement +than it warrants, a nice sense of the +probabilities, and a keen understanding +of the quantitative importance of particular +facts. You can judge the general +reliability of any observer most easily by +the estimate he puts upon the reliability +of his own report. If you have no facts +of your own with which to check him, +the best rough measurement is to wait +and see whether he is aware of any limitations +in himself; whether he knows that +he saw only part of the event he describes; +and whether he has any background +of knowledge against which he +can set what he thinks he has seen.</p> + +<p>This kind of sophistication is, of +course, necessary for the merest pretense +to any education. But for different professions +it needs to be specialized in particular +ways. A sound legal training is +pervaded by it, but the skepticism is +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span>pointed to the type of case with which +the lawyer deals. The reporter’s work +is not carried on under the same conditions, +and therefore requires a different +specialization. How he is to acquire it +is, of course, a pedagogical problem requiring +an inductive study of the types +of witness and the sources of information +with whom the reporter is in contact.</p> + +<p>Some time in the future, when men +have thoroughly grasped the rôle of public +opinion in society, scholars will not +hesitate to write treatises on evidence for +the use of news-gathering services. No +such treatise exists to-day, because political +science has suffered from that +curious prejudice of the scholar which +consists in regarding an irrational phenomenon +as not quite worthy of serious +study.</p> + +<p>Closely akin to an education in the +tests of credibility is rigorous discipline +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span>in the use of words. It is almost impossible +to overestimate the confusion in +daily life caused by sheer inability to +use language with intention. We talk +scornfully of “mere words.” Yet through +words the whole vast process of human +communication takes place. The sights +and sounds and meanings of nearly all +that we deal with as “politics,” we learn, +not by our own experience, but through +the words of others. If those words are +meaningless lumps charged with emotion, +instead of the messengers of fact, all +sense of evidence breaks down. Just so +long as big words like Bolshevism, +Americanism, patriotism, pro-Germanism, +are used by reporters to cover anything +and anybody that the biggest fool +at large wishes to include, just so long +shall we be seeking our course through a +fog so dense that we cannot tell whether +we fly upside-down or right-side-up. It +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span>is a measure of our education as a people +that so many of us are perfectly content +to live our political lives in this +fraudulent environment of unanalyzed +words. For the reporter, abracadabra is +fatal. So long as he deals in it, he is +gullibility itself, seeing nothing of the +world, and living, as it were, in a hall +of crazy mirrors.</p> + +<p>Only the discipline of a modernized +logic can open the door to reality. An +overwhelming part of the dispute about +“freedom of opinion” turns on words +which mean different things to the censor +and the agitator. So long as the +meanings of the words are not dissociated, +the dispute will remain a circular +wrangle. Education that shall make +men masters of their vocabulary is one +of the central interests of liberty. For +such an education alone can transform the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span>dispute into debate from similar premises.</p> + +<p>A sense of evidence and a power to +define words must for the modern reporter +be accompanied by a working +knowledge of the main stratifications and +currents of interest. Unless he knows +that “news” of society almost always +starts from a special group, he is doomed +to report the surface of events. He will +report the ripples of a passing steamer, +and forget the tides and the currents and +the ground-swell. He will report what +Kolchak or Lenin says, and see what +they do only when it confirms what he +thinks they said. He will deal with the +flicker of events and not with their motive. +There are ways of reading that +flicker so as to discern the motive, but +they have not been formulated in the +light of recent knowledge. Here is big +work for the student of politics. The +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span>good reporter reads events with an intuition +trained by wide personal experience. +The poor reporter cannot read +them, because he is not even aware that +there is anything in particular to read.</p> + +<p>And then the reporter needs a general +sense of what the world is doing. Emphatically +he ought not to be serving a +cause, no matter how good. In his professional +activity it is no business of his +to care whose ox is gored. To be sure, +when so much reporting is <i>ex parte</i>, and +hostile to insurgent forces, the insurgents +in self-defense send out <i>ex parte</i> reporters +of their own. But a community cannot +rest content to learn the truth about +the Democrats by reading the Republican +papers, and the truth about the Republicans +by reading the Democratic papers. +There is room, and there is need, +for disinterested reporting; and if this +sounds like a counsel of perfection now, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span>it is only because the science of public +opinion is still at the point where astronomy +was when theological interests +proclaimed the conclusions that all research +must vindicate.</p> + +<p>While the reporter will serve no cause, +he will possess a steady sense that the +chief purpose of “news” is to enable +mankind to live successfully toward the +future. He will know that the world +is a process, not by any means always +onward and upward, but never quite the +same. As the observer of the signs of +change, his value to society depends upon +the prophetic discrimination with which +he selects those signs.</p> + +<p>But the news from which he must pick +and choose has long since become too +complicated even for the most highly +trained reporter. The work, say, of the +government is really a small part of the +day’s news, yet even the wealthiest and +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span>most resourceful newspapers fail in their +efforts to report “Washington.” The +high lights and the disputes and sensational +incidents are noted, but no one can +keep himself informed about his Congressman +or about the individual departments, +by reading the daily press. This +failure in no way reflects on the newspapers. +It results from the intricacy and +unwieldiness of the subject-matter. +Thus, it is easier to report Congress than +it is to report the departments, because +the work of Congress crystallizes crudely +every so often in a roll-call. But administration, +although it has become +more important than legislation, is hard +to follow, because its results are spread +over a longer period of time, and its effects +are felt in ways that no reporter +can really measure.</p> + +<p>Theoretically Congress is competent +to act as the critical eye on administration. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span>Actually, the investigations Of +Congress are almost always planless +raids, conducted by men too busy and +too little informed to do more than catch +the grosser evils, or intrude upon good +work that is not understood. It was a +recognition of these difficulties that was +the cause of two very interesting experiments +in late years. One was the establishment +of more or less semi-official institutes +of government research; the +other, the growth of specialized private +agencies which attempt to give technical +summaries of the work of various +branches of the government. Neither +experiment has created much commotion: +yet together they illustrate an idea +which, properly developed, will be increasingly +valuable to an enlightened +public opinion.</p> + +<p>Their principle is simple. They are +expert organized reporters. Having no +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span>horror of dullness, no interest in being +dramatic, they can study statistics and +orders and reports which are beyond the +digestive powers of a newspaper man or +of his readers. The lines of their growth +would seem to be threefold: to make a +current record, to make a running analysis +of it, and on the basis of both, to suggest +plans.</p> + +<p>Record and analysis require an experimental +formulation of standards by +which the work of government can be +tested. Such standards are not to be +evolved off-hand out of anyone’s consciousness. +Some have already been +worked out experimentally, others still +need to be discovered; all need to be refined +and brought into perspective by +the wisdom of experience. Carried out +competently, the public would gradually +learn to substitute objective criteria for +gossip and intuitions. One can imagine +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span>a public-health service subjected to such +expert criticism. The institute of research +publishes the death-rate as a +whole for a period of years. It seems +that for a particular season the rate is +bad in certain maladies, that in others +the rate of improvement is not sufficiently +rapid. These facts are compared +with the expenditures of the service, +and with the main lines of its activity. +Are the bad results due to the causes +beyond the control of the service? do +they indicate a lack of foresight in asking +appropriations for special work? or +in the absence of novel phenomena, do +they point to a decline of the personnel, +or in its morale? If the latter, further +analysis may reveal that salaries are too +low to attract men of ability, or that +the head of the service by bad management +has weakened the interest of his +staff.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span></p> + +<p>When the work of government is analyzed +in some such way as this, the reporter +deals with a body of knowledge +that has been organized for his apprehension. +In other words, he is able to +report the “news,” because between him +and the raw material of government +there has been interposed a more or +less expert political intelligence. He +ceases to be the ant, described by William +James, whose view of a building +was obtained by crawling over the cracks +in the walls.</p> + +<p>These political observatories will, I +think, be found useful in all branches +of government, national, state, municipal, +industrial, and even in foreign affairs. +They should be clearly out of +reach either of the wrath or of the favor +of the office-holders. They must, of +course, be endowed, but the endowment +should be beyond the immediate control +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span>of the legislature and of the rich patron. +Their independence can be partially +protected by the terms of the trust; the +rest must be defended by the ability of +the institute to make itself so much the +master of the facts as to be impregnably +based on popular confidence.</p> + +<p>One would like to think that the universities +could be brought into such a +scheme. Were they in close contact with +the current record and analysis, there +might well be a genuine “field work” in +political science for the students; and +there could be no better directing idea +for their more advanced researches than +the formulation of the intellectual +methods by which the experience of +government could be brought to usable +control. After all, the purpose of studying +“political science” is to be able to act +more effectively in politics, the word +effectively being understood in the largest +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span>and, therefore, the ideal sense. In the +universities men should be able to think +patiently and generously for the good of +society. If they do not, surely one of +the reasons is that thought terminates in +doctor’s theses and brown quarterlies, +and not in the critical issues of politics.</p> + +<p>On first thought, all this may seem +rather a curious direction for an inquiry +into the substance of liberty. Yet we +have always known, as a matter of common +sense, that there was an intimate +connection between “liberty” and the use +of liberty. Every one who has examined +the subject at all has had to conclude +that tolerance <i>per se</i> is an arbitrary line, +and that, in practice, the determining +factor is the significance of the opinion to +be tolerated. This study is based on an +avowal of that fact. Once it is avowed, +there seems to be no way of evading the +conclusion that liberty is not so much +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span>permission as it is the construction of a +system of information increasingly independent +of opinion. In the long run it +looks as if opinion could be made at +once free and enlightening only by transferring +our interest from “opinion” to the +objective realities from which it springs. +This thought has led us to speculations +on ways of protecting and organizing +the stream of news as the source of all +opinion that matters. Obviously these +speculations do not pretend to offer a +fully considered or a completed scheme. +Their nature forbids it, and I should be +guilty of the very opinionativeness I +have condemned, did these essays claim +to be anything more than tentative indications +of the more important phases +of the problem.</p> + +<p>Yet I can well imagine their causing +a considerable restlessness in the minds +of some readers. Standards, institutes, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span>university research, schools of journalism, +they will argue, may be all right, +but they are a gray business in a vivid +world. They blunt the edge of life; they +leave out of account the finely irresponsible +opinion thrown out by the creative +mind; they do not protect the indispensable +novelty from philistinism and oppression. +These proposals of yours, they +will say, ignore the fact that such an apparatus +of knowledge will in the main +be controlled by the complacent and the +traditional, and the execution will inevitably +be illiberal.</p> + +<p>There is force in the indictment. +And yet I am convinced that we shall +accomplish more by fighting for truth +than by fighting for our theories. It is a +better loyalty. It is a humbler one, but +it is also more irresistible. Above all it +is educative. For the real enemy is ignorance, +from which all of us, conservative, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span>liberal, and revolutionary, suffer. +If our effort is concentrated on our desires,—be +it our desire to have and to +hold what is good, our desire to remake +peacefully, or our desire to transform +suddenly,—we shall divide hopelessly +and irretrievably. We must go back of +our opinions to the neutral facts for unity +and refreshment of spirit. To deny this, +it seems to me, is to claim that the mass +of men is impervious to education, and +to deny that, is to deny the postulate of +democracy, and to seek salvation in a +dictatorship. There is, I am convinced, +nothing but misery and confusion that +way. But I am equally convinced that +democracy will degenerate into this dictatorship +either of the Right or of the +Left, if it does not become genuinely +self-governing. That means, in terms of +public opinion, a resumption of that contact +between beliefs and realities which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span>we have been losing steadily since the +small-town democracy was absorbed into +the Great Society.</p> + +<p>The administration of public information +toward greater accuracy and more +successful analysis is the highway of +liberty. It is, I believe, a matter of first-rate +importance that we should fix this +in our minds. Having done so, we may +be able to deal more effectively with the +traps and the lies and the special interests +which obstruct the road and drive us +astray. Without a clear conception of +what the means of liberty are, the +struggle for free speech and free opinion +easily degenerates into a mere contest of +opinion.</p> + +<p>But realization is not the last step, +though it is the first. We need be under +no illusion that the stream of news can +be purified simply by pointing out the +value of purity. The existing news-structure +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span>may be made serviceable to democracy +along the general lines suggested, +by the training of the journalist, and by +the development of expert record and +analysis. But while it may be, it will not +be, simply by saying that it ought to be. +Those who are now in control have too +much at stake, and they control the source +of reform itself.</p> + +<p>Change will come only by the drastic +competition of those whose interests are +not represented in the existing news-organization. +It will come only if organized +labor and militant liberalism set +a pace which cannot be ignored. Our +sanity and, therefore, our safety depend +upon this competition, upon fearless and +relentless exposure conducted by self-conscious +groups that are now in a minority. +It is for these groups to understand +that the satisfaction of advertising +a pet theory is as nothing compared to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span>the publication of the news. And having +realized it, it is for them to combine +their resources and their talent for the +development of an authentic news-service +which is invincible because it supplies +what the community is begging for and +cannot get.</p> + +<p>All the gallant little sheets expressing +particular programmes are at bottom +vanity, and in the end, futility, so long +as the reporting of daily news is left in +untrained and biased hands. If we are +to move ahead, we must see a great independent +journalism, setting standards +for commercial journalism, like those +which the splendid English coöperative +societies are setting for commercial business. +An enormous amount of money is +dribbled away in one fashion or another +on little papers, mass-meetings, and what +not. If only some considerable portion +of it could be set aside to establish a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span>central international news-agency, we +should make progress. We cannot fight +the untruth which envelops us by parading +our opinions. We can do it only by +reporting the facts, and we do not deserve +to win if the facts are against us.</p> + +<p>The country is spotted with benevolent +foundations of one kind or another, +many of them doing nothing but pay +the upkeep of fine buildings and sinecures. +Organized labor spends large +sums of money on politics and strikes +which fail because it is impossible to secure +a genuine hearing in public opinion. +Could there be a pooling of money for +a news-agency? Not, I imagine, if its +object were to further a cause. But suppose +the plan were for a news-service in +which editorial matter was rigorously +excluded, and the work was done by men +who had already won the confidence of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span>the public by their independence? Then, +perhaps.</p> + +<p>At any rate, our salvation lies in two +things: ultimately, in the infusion of the +news-structure by men with a new +training and outlook; immediately, in +the concentration of the independent +forces against the complacency and bad +service of the routineers. We shall advance +when we have learned humility; +when we have learned to seek the truth, +to reveal it and publish it; when we +care more for that than for the privilege +of arguing about ideas in a fog of +uncertainty.</p> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77035 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/77035-h/images/cover.jpg b/77035-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bdbc89e --- /dev/null +++ b/77035-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9c04c5d --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for eBook #77035 +(https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77035) |
