ceased and the phrase well characterizes the place of many editorial writers. During the war the spirit of infallibility once more asserted itself to an extreme degree, but it seemed a passing phase and the close of the war is bringing a return of moderate judgments and a decrease in that spirit of omniscience which is a characteristic of ignorance.
As personal ownership of newspapers has been superseded by corporate ownership, the place of the editor becomes more and more conventional; as the personal owner continues to be the editor, he tends to consider more than formerly the commercial interests of his paper. These changes seem to create the impression, even among newspaper men themselves, that the editorial is declining in importance. "A newspaper is divided into three parts," says a recent novel dealing with the press. "News is the merchandise which it has to sell. Advertising is the by-product that pays the bills. The editorial page is a survival. At its best it analyzes and points out the significance of important news. At its worst, it is a mouthpiece for the prejudices or the projects of whoever runs it. Few people are influenced by it, many are amused by it. It isn't very important nowadays."[1]
To Porritt, it seemed "open to question whether the editorial writer is the power he once was in English journalism . He still helps to keep his party together; but nowadays it is doubtful whether the editorial columns of the daily press make many political converts."[2]
The explanation of these changes in England Porritt somewhat bluntly finds in the reform of the English civil service that has made it impossible for a Government to reward its journalistic supporters by quartering them on the civil establishment,—that there are no very substantial favors of any kind that a Government can confer on the editors or owners of journals; that about all it can do is to give a paper a share in official advertising and to
- ↑ S. H. Adams, The Clarion, p. 99.A similar opinion has been expressed by H . W. Massingham who discusses the theory that the editor may disappear as the news side of the paper is more and more developed . "If nature has no further use for him, in Heaven 's name let him go . The world did very well without him once, and will do so again ."—" The Ethics of Editing," National Review, April, 1900, 35: 256–261.
- ↑ E . Porritt, The Englishman at Home, p. 319 .
