the omission from this document does not necessarily mean the denial of such existence. The question must at least be raised
whether the omission of news by the press must always be attributed to wilful suppression. But it must be recognized that it is in the selection of material that one of the great limitations on the authoritativeness of the
press is found. Standards in the readers of the press are as essen tial as are standards in the newspaper itself and when the press gives as much space to a would -be assassin “ who delights in being the most talked of man in the country to -day ” as it gives to his
victim , it is presumably in deference to the standards ofits readers. The charge is often made that the newspaper does not give the news and that it suppresses the news,yet the news desired by the public is often what the press is legally prevented from giving. If a great brokerage firm fails , involving hundreds of clients in financial loss, the public demands to know the cause and to know
what has become of the money; yet to print even one of the score of tales current on the street, before official investigations are completed , would be to prejudge a case and render the press liable
to an action for libel. If a fire is suspected as having had an in cendiary origin , the public demands to know who caused it , yet
to give the news desired and indicate the offender before an indictment had been presented would again be to print libellous
matter. If a death occurs under suspicious circumstances, the public demands all the news, yet to point to any individual as having been criminally concerned in it is to invite an action against the press so reporting the crime. If the press does not always tell all things to all men , it is not always because the news is suppressed , butbecause the press , like all individuals, is justly
controlled by the lawsmade for the protection of the innocent. The position of the press in regard to all matters of scandal is a troublesome one; if it suppresses news of this character , it seems at least entitled to the defense always accorded an individual,
that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty . It may or itmay not be true that in such cases “ the silence of the press was due to
a cowardly fear of the money of the other side." 10 Until it is 10 Caro Lloyd, Henry Demarest Lloyd , II, 145 . Mr. Lloyd cites a conspic uous case where appearances indicated suppression of news, but other
reasons might be assumed besides the one inferred .
