Somewhat analogous is the explanation of the fact that journalism has grown more im personal in its sources and impress. It is no longer distinguished by the great overshadow ing personalities which marked it a generation ago. No editorial chief puts his individual stamp on a paper as Horace Greeley did, with his controversial power, his moral earnestness and his incisive force, which seemed to make the whole paper breathe his spirit and speak his voice. There are no successors to Ray mond, Bennett, Weed, Bowles and Dana. Henry Watterson is perhaps the only survivor of the old school of journalists. The differ ence is due, however, not so much to the lack of men as to the change of conditions. In its immeasurably wider range and larger demands the great journal of to-day is the product of no single mind, but of a vast organization and of a whole galaxy of stars. The elder journal ism was largely political pamphleteering. The later journalism is the complete mirror of daily life, and no individual throws so great a shadow across its comprehensive face.
It is a question much mooted whether jour nalism has declined in influence. It never was as universally read as now; it never was so much a common practice to read several news papers; and whether in this multiplicity of reading and frequent contrariety of represen tation as serious an impression is made as when the appeal was more earnest and less di vided may well be doubted. The editorial page has not actually fallen off in interest and im portance; on the contrary, it is all in all better written, more varied and more instructive than when it had more of a polemic character. But in the broad development and great advance of the news departments the editorial page has receded in relative importance, and the drift to the light treatment of topics has tended to detract from its distinct and superior position. The greater absorption of the public mind in multiplied interests operates in the same direc tion. In the stress of modern business life and in the variety of diversions the body of readers have less time to follow public dis cussion. If it be true, as it often is, that the favorite journal does the thinking for its read ers on current questions, it is equally true that many of the questions take less hold than when life was more simple and feeling more tense. When the press is in substantial accord on any public matter, except where party tradition rules, it generally carries the public judgment, and united expression makes it invincible; but when there is a discord of journalistic voices little heed is apt to be paid to any. The power of the press in its aggregate force, in the sweep of its activities and in a certain ap prehension of its publicity, has steadily aug mented; but at the same time the impression that it is too intrusive, too little restrained, too little governed by a just sense of responsibility, has grown and has impaired the influence it would otherwise exert.
It remains true, however, and probably grows more true with the decadence of other influences, that the press is the most effective force in protecting the moral and social well being of the community. It is the belief of
many observers that under our modern condi tions the weight of mere authority is declining. In the intense strife and eagerness of the times the efficacy of the old standards in enforcing true principles and restraining wrongdoing grows weaker. With this advance of individual assertion and independence the power of public opinion is becoming the surest defense of social and business morality. The blaze of publicity gives a protection which nothing else furnishes. In the financial and social world there is a wide margin along the shadowy and undefined line between law and lawlessness, between ethical duty and questionable interest where the search-light of exposure is the only secu rity. Much would be done under cover of darlaiess which fears the light. Despite a free dom which often degenerates into license the press is thus recognized not only as the most effective safeguard against political and admin istrative debauchery but as the best bulwark against that social and business misconduct which becomes a public offense.
The relation of the counting-room to the editorial department involves both the business and the ethics of journalism. The business side cannot be disregarded. In its ultimate purpose it is a commercial proposition. Newspapers are published to make money. The counting room considers both income and outgo. It ad justs expenditures to receipts. It properly studies to augment revenue in every legitimate way. But while newspapers are business enter prises they are such with recognized limita tions and obligations. They are not simply business undertakings but public representa tives, and the former object, while consistent with the latter, is subordinate to it. The foundation of the newspaper is the confidence of the public. It is the history of yesterday and the interpreter and teacher of to-day. In the very nature of the relation it assumes dis tinct obligations. It is bound to give the news and to treat public questions in absolute good faith. The counting-room is warranted in do ing business in every way compatible with the fulfilment of that duty, but in all legitimate journalism it is a fundamental rule that edi torial opinion and news publication must be beyond the reach of any questionable influence. The editorial department must be entirely free from commercialism. Public confidence and moral power depend on full faith that editorial and news conduct is honest, fearless and up right. The publication of a newspaper, like any other enterprise, is founded on business principles; its sphere or field of operations, whether general, political, literary or other, is chosen; the relation of counting-room and edi torial-room in organizing and maintaining it on a sound business basis is of the most intimate character; but when the general lines of the enterprise are determined, the independence and integrity of the editorial management and fidelity to its declared aim as a public repre sentative within its chosen sphere are abso lutely indispensable. This rule lies at the foundation of the whole ethical code of journalism.