REVIEWS 563
do" (p. 112). His conclusion is based on the conviction that the sensational newspaper is the American type and that the charac- teristics of this paper are replicas of the American character. Mr. Rogers' study is popular and general, not exact nor scientific. It has many interesting facts concerning the conduct of the news- paper business, the attitudes of editors, etc. We are told that 15,000 papers were studied, but not how they were studied, nor are we given the exact results of the study, but merely generali- zations from the results. It is true that we are told (p. 54) : "Quantitatively, an examination of yellow and conservative papers shows that the former class of papers devote 20 per cent, of their space to reports of crime and vice, while the ordinary conserva- tive newspaper gives but 5 per cent.," but the reader is given no definition of crime and vice and thus we do not know what news- paper matter Mr. Rogers includes under these heads. We do know from the rest of his treatment that he is considering crime and vice from the judicial and conventional, rather than from the social viewpoint, that he is not tracing out the whole circuit of activity, from the stimulus in the newspaper through to the social response. Mr. Rogers' conclusion, therefore, is not a constructive one. It falls into the fallacy which is so characteristic of dramatic critics and stage-managers when the moral effect of a play is in question. They say, "Improve the public and plays will improve." This fallacy errs in two directions : it ignores the fact tiiat its reply is in answer to a protest on the part of that very public, and it fails to see that copies set by plays (and newspapers) are a very potent factor in keeping some of the public what it is.
Frances Fenton
The University of Chicago
