Alfred Harmsworth’s (Lord Northcliffe’s) Answers (1888) and Mr C. Arthur Pearson’s Pearson’s Weekly (1890)—had a further influence on public taste, so that even the classes above that which primarily enjoyed these publications were affected in the same direction. A new note was thus introduced into English daily journalism in England. Whereas before 1885 the chief feature in London journalism, outside The Times and other great morning papers, had been the literary brilliance of the Saturday Review and its evening paper analogues, the Pall Mall and St James’s Gazettes, in the early 'nineties came a craze for “actuality.” Mr T. P. O’Connor, with his vivid pen (first in the Star, then in the Sunday Sun and elsewhere), set the pace for a crowd of imitators; the successful establishment of the Daily Mail in 1896, with its system of compressing the news of the day briefly and pointedly into short paragraphs, while at the same time catering for all tastes and employing first-rate correspondents and reporters to supply it with special information, gave a distinct shake-up to the older traditions of daily journalism. The old tendency had been to rely for success either on writers of exceptional knowledge or capacity, men who were essentially amateurs, or on a class of professional journalists who at all events had a literary tradition behind them. A different sort of amateur now arose, and a different sort of professional. Even when an attempt was made to provide for a literary public, success came to be generally sought by popular rather than by literary methods. The literary public in the proper sense of the word is inevitably a small one, and the greater part of the Press deals with literature on lines more suited to a larger and less refined clientèle. It may be claimed, no doubt, that the best sort of journalism shows a high, and sometimes the highest, literary standard, but the fact remains that for the bulk of modern journalism its conductors realize only too well that their business is to appeal to the masses, and to a standard of education and taste which falls far short of anything that can be called intellectual.
It is often said that the leading articles or “editorials,” expressing the attitude of the paper towards important subjects of the day, have lost their importance, but this is only a half-truth. Allowance being made for changes in literary style, the actual amount of good writing in this department in the great organs of opinion—well-informed, scholarly and incisive—may justly be considered equal to anything done in what are sometimes considered its palmy days.[1] On the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that in the newer type of newspaper, which appeals rather on the score of its tit-bits of news and rapid readableness to a more casual and less serious public, the whole raison d’être of the old-fashioned leading article has disappeared, and its place is taken by a few brief notes, merely indicating the attitude of the paper, and not seeking to discuss any subject comprehensively at all. The “leader” is to some extent a form of newspaper routine, but on the whole it is a routine which has proved its value by experience. The continuous high standard of tone, maintained by so many great journals, depends more largely than is sometimes realized on the regular industry and skill of those whose business it is to discuss the latest developments of affairs every day or every week in a manner which gives reasonable men something fresh to think about, or interprets for them the thoughts which are only vaguely floating in their minds. The liberty of the Press enables every sort of view, right or wrong, to be discussed in this prominent form, and thus every aspect of a question is brought out in public, to be accepted or rejected according to the weight of evidence and of argument.
The same end is assisted by the devotion of so much space to “letters to the editor.” It is sometimes said that in England the London Times owes its position largely to the fact that if any individual grievance is felt it is generally ventilated by a letter to The Times. Whatever may be the organization of the Press for reporting the news of the day, the resources of no newspaper staff are great enough to cover an area of information as large as that represented by its readers; and the value of the outlet for opinion and information afforded by the correspondence columns cannot be overstated.
Most people probably read more papers than is compatible with a healthy mental digestion, but the Press, as such, has to-day an enormous—and none the less real because subtle—influence; and this is largely due to the reputation maintained by its higher representatives. While, individually, the great papers wield considerable influence, due partly to real sagacity and authority, partly to the psychological effect produced by mere print or by reiterated statement, collectively the Press now represents the Public, and expresses popular opinion more directly than any representative assembly. The multiplication of “Press-cutting agencies,” and of such essentially “newsy” publications as Who’s Who (the English form of which originated with Mr Douglas Sladen in 1897) and similar biographical reference books—all tending to increase the publicity of modern life—has contributed materially to the pervading influence of journalism in everyday life and the constant dependence of society in most of its manifestations on the activity of the “Fourth Estate.” (H. Ch.)
From the introduction of low rates for telegraphy and from the increase of mechanical methods of production, and of the desire to read and the growth of advertising (see Advertisement), the modern low-priced newspaper has resulted. But it is by no means a recent development merely. In France, Theophrastus Renaudot’s Price of newspapers. Gazette de Paris (1631) was started at the price of six centimes. In England we find the first mention of inexpensive news-sheets towards the close of the 17th century, when a number of halfpenny and farthing Posts sprang into existence, and appeared at more or less irregular intervals. These consisted of small leaflets, containing a few items of news—sometimes accompanied by advertisements—and were commonly sold in the streets by hawkers. The rise in cost was really due to artificial causes. The increase of these newspapers, and especially the growing practice of inserting advertisements, led the legislature to contemplate a stamp tax of a penny per sheet on all news publications. As a protest, a curious pamphlet—of which a copy is preserved in the British Museum—was issued in 1701, and it sheds an interesting light upon this early phase of cheap journalism. The pamphlet is entitled Reasons humbly offered to the Parliament on behalf of several persons concerned in the paper-making, printing and publishing of the halfpenny newspapers. It states that five master printers were engaged in the trade, which used 20,000 reams of paper per annum. The journals are described in the following terms: “The said newspapers have been always a whole sheet and a half, and sold for one halfpenny to the poorer sort of people, who are purchasers of it by reason of its cheapness, to divert themselves, and also to allure herewith their young children and entice them to reading; and should a duty of three halfpence be laid on these mean newspapers (which, by reason of the coarseness of the paper, the generality of gentlemen are above conversing with), it would utterly extinguish and suppress the same.” The pamphlet goes on to say that hundreds of families, including a considerable number of blind people, were supported by selling the halfpenny journals in the streets.
In 1712 a tax of a halfpenny per sheet was imposed, and the cheap newspapers at once ceased to exist. This tax on the press was increased from time to time, till in 1815 it stood at fourpence per sheet. The usual price of newspapers was then sevenpence a copy. From these facts it seems highly probable that, had not the stamp tax been imposed, the halfpenny paper would soon have become the normal type, and would have continued so to this day. In 1724 a committee of the House of Commons sat to consider the action of certain printers who were evading the stamp tax by publishing cheap newspapers under the guise of pamphlets. They found that there were then two Halfpenny Posts published in London, one by Read of Whitefriars, and the
- ↑ It must be remembered that the style of public speeches has also altered. Nobody thinks of quoting the classics nowadays in the House of Commons. A more business-like form of speech is adopted in public life, and the Press reflects this change.
