JOURNALISM OF TO-DAY 449
Nobody familiar with the legitimate objects of a newspaper, the ends which it very properly endeavors to serve, would argue that all items that are demoralizing or unwholesome in the sense that they have to do with the misconduct of human beings, with murder or robbery or arson or with worse, if possible, should be entirely ignored. It has been asserted, and with truth, surely, that it will be a sorry day for this or any other country when newspapers are forced to regard what is unwholesome or demoralizing as so commonplace, so much a matter of course, as to be undeserving of treatment as a matter of news, happen- ings not only of interest, but doings with which all adult persons should be made acquainted. There would speedily be formed a very false and wholly misleading conception of actual conditions of society and the state of k the body politic as it is, were all reference to what is demoraliz- ing or unwholesome suppressed. Comparisons by which progress in civilization and moral advance could be measured would be out of the question, of course. Such an ostrich-like procedure or departure would leave us in utter ignorance of existence and its environments; of the life that is being lived; it would tempt us to plume ourselves on virtues that we do not possess; on civic righteousness which is wanting. As for the trivial things of life, who shall draw the line between the important and the unimportant? A very wise philosopher has declared that "under God's mysterious dispensation there are no trifles."
LOCAL INFLUENCE OF READERS
Several writers on journalism have pointed to Charleston, South Carolina, as an example of where newspapers were vir- tually owned and controlled by a powerful social organization. Attention has been repeatedly called to how the newspapers of that city never report the balls and social activities of the St. Cecilia Society. Critics have overlooked the important fact that newspaper readers have moulded journalism in that city where there is a resentment against publicity, not only about the balls of the St. Cecilia Society, but also about weddings and other social events. Charleston newspaper readers have spoken in no uncertain terms about these matters. No evidence has yet been produced that the newspapers of Charleston have suppressed news to which the public was legitimately entitled and for which there could be any difference of opinion about its affecting the welfare of the city.
