knowledge of the subject than has the newspaper writer, but for the “man in the street” who might profit from a more intelligent gaze into the heavens. Who will contend that the newspaper editorial should so reek with technical terms that it could be understood only by those who already know all about the subject? Again, there’s the editorial designed to stimulate action, or , at least, thought, on some political, social or economic question of moment to the general body of the readers. Decidedly, the person for whom this it not intended is the expert on the subject, who, conceivably, might himself write a better editorial than the editor has produced. This will be readily conceded. What is less frequently ad mitted is, that an article taking one side of a question should be more or less definitely directed toward those who do not hold the same view as the editor— more particularly to those whose minds are not made up; and even, also, to those who, through what the editor regards as misinformation or prejudice, are on the other side. Can you see what this does to the old biting type of editorial which got the editor the reputation of wielding a vigorous pen (“trenchant” used to be the orthodox term), but which never brought a democratic soul into the repub lican camp or gave the democrats a con vert from the ranks of the “enemy”? The writer has his own theory as to why many editorials are not read. It is simply this: because the editor himself is not interested in them, and could he put himself in the position of one of his own readers, could not be persuaded to waste his time on such stufi. He doesn’t believe in his editorial. Oh, yes, he does, you say? But does he‘! Does an editor who would be bored to death by a discus sion of editorials in a meeting which might be devoted to the problem of get ting more money out of advertising; an editor who could never be caught discuss ing the editorial page with a fellow editor; an editor who writes his editorial after a hard day of office routine has left him tired and spiritless; and who sighs as his two typewritten sheets are taken in hand by his linotype oper ator, “ Thank God that’s over for this week!”—-ca n such an editor seriously ex pect that his editorials will be read! Whether he actually wants them to be seriously read, he himself can answer. The editor of the Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal argues, in an interesting dis cussion on the subject, that it’s a real disadvantage for an editor not to know what he’s writing about, and he goes after the wordsmiths with such joyful abandon that Oneoos Excrtsnoss herewith re prints the article: “ We have a letter asking us why edi torials are not read. It is not a compli mentary question to propound to a newspaper, but after thinking it over we have come to the conclusion that perhaps there is something in it. Then we reached for the first great daily at hand to scan its editorials in corroboration or rebuttal. And the first thing that caught our eye was this gem from a. Cleveland news paper:
“ Judge Bernon’s resignation loses to the court one of its strongest members and his retirement is much to be regretted. He has been able, courageous and efficient, an upholder of law, firmly insistent that those who deliberately violate the canons of social order shall pay the penalty thereof. He has been a friend of order but an enemy of crime, and Cuyahoga county loses a useful public servant in his retirement.
“Here Judge Bernon is held up as a remarkable and useful man and the rea sons are specified that he was able, courageous, efficient and an upholder of law. We might then conclude that most judges are nincompoops, cowards, incompetents and law violators. He firmly insisted that those who deliberately violated the canons of social order should pay the penalty. We therefore might conclude that unless they deliberately murdered a man, stole
