A BOOK OF THE MOMENT
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE NEWSPAPER
" Ye tee too much upon you, ye sons of Levi."—(Numbers xvi. 7.) THE best thing ever said about the functions of the newspaper was said by Delane. Delane had found out, or guessed, the action-and the motives of the Government in a particular case. Accordingly, he enlightened the readers of the Times. Lord Palmerston, who, by the way, began the fatal ministerial habit of leaning upon the Press, was very much concerned about the disclosures, and upbraided Delane for what he had done. Palmerston admitted that the statement was true, but declared that the exposure had been very injurious to the Government, and so ought not to have been made. Delane cut the lecture short : " You seem to forget, Lord Palmerston, that my business is publicity."
Here is the crux of the whole matter. Governments and leaders of the Opposition in their treatment of newspapers are always forgetting that the real function of the newspaper is publicity, enlightenment, the turning up of the lights, so that as far as possible the country can see what is happening. It is for that people pay their pennies, their twopences, and their sixpences, and daily turn the weighty leaves of a trade catalogue. The newspaper reader by his purchase makes a contract with the newspaper proprietor to supply him (1) with honest news as to the world's affairs ; (2) with honest and uncorrupt comment upon the news. This, it is implied in the sale contract, is to be clearly marked off as comment Comment is obviously one of the things that a reader wants to buy. He is, of course, quite willing that the comment should sometimes be pure advocacy, and sometimes matter in the nature of a judicial summing up. He wants, that is to say, an explanation from somebody he trusts—as one trusts a solicitor, or a book critic, or a dramatic or art critic. He wants a guide, in fact. These two forms of publicity are the goods demanded and paid for, and therefore the goods that ought to be delivered.
Although he comes very near to seeing and expressing this in his book about the Public and the Press, Lord Beaverbrook just shies off at the critical moment. He fully agrees that a newpaper ought to give its readers the news and ought to be independent, but, like so many politicians, he does not very accurately analyse his own views. After stating the proper view about journalistic independence, he drifts off into arguments which come perilously near to being a plea for government by newspaper. In effect he adopts the opinion that it is the business of the journalist to dictate the nation's policy, and to force it upon the Government. He seems to regard Governments with a kind of pathetic sympathy, as persons who cannot be expected to do the honest thing, or even the wise thing, unless they can be assured of newspaper support. Ministers are apparently to be considered as belong- ing to that type of leader who considers that his main business is to follow—the type who can always excuse himself by saying, " I did not do what I knew was the right and the best thing because I had no assurance that I should get support."
I must hasten to say that, though Lord Beaverbrook takes this distorted view of the functions of a newspaper, he does not deserve strong condemnation for so doing. He can very well excuse himself by saying, " I am dealing with facts. I find that Governments cannot, or will not, act unless the ground has been prepared for them by newspaper pioneers and guides. Therefore it is the duty of the newspapers to lead, and, in fact, very often to govern." It is, nevertheless, a fatal and hopeless position ; though, no doubt, it is due to the wealmess of the politicians rather than to anything malignant on the part of the newspapers. Somebody has got to lead, to show the way, and if Ministers will not do it, one can hardly blame others for taking on the job..
I have chosen as a text for this review the biblical denun- ciation of the sons of Levi, who took too much upon themselves. Prime Ministers and Cabinets are to be as severely con- demned, because they take too little upon themselves, as are newspaper proprietors for taking too much. Why do not Governments keep the newspaper in its proper place—that of critic and exploiter of publicity, i.e., news-vendor ? Instead they try to pick up a policy out of what they call " public opinion." But public opinion, as was said by an eighteenth- century satirist, is too often nothing but " a mixture of pre. judice and newspaper paragraphs." For Governments, in brief; public opinion has come to mean merely Press opinion.
Tlie politician can, unfortunately, find plausible excuses for his timidity and unwillingness to lead. " What is the use of beating one's head against a brick wall ? We can only do those things for which we can get public endorsement. vif we are not careful, the Press will so distort our opinions and actions,- or, at any rate, will so excite the temper of the public, that we shall never get the necessary endorsement. Therefore we must at all costs have a good Press."
I venture to say that this view of the omnipotence of the Press, though a very pleasant one for the journalist, is entirely, erroneous. The voters are not controlled by the newspapers. Whenever an attempt to create such control has been made it has failed. Take the great case of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform campaign. Mr. Chamberlain eventually got the whole, or practically the whole, of the Unionist Press, except the Spectator, on his side and also most of the non-party papers. Further, owing to various circumstances, he had what appeared to be a very weak Liberal Press against him. But, though some couple of hundred newspapers were daily and weekly writing Tariff Reform articles and were representing public opinion as entirely with him, what they were really doing was leading him on to his doom. Like the prophets of Baal, they were all " sending him in a compliment to be knocked on the head at Ramoth-Gilead." In spite of the apparently irresistible Press, the Tariff Reformers were pulverized at the polls. John Bull had read his twenty or thirty thousand leaders in favour of Tariff Reform and against Free Trade and had not turned a hair. The Press can gain great successes only by accurately, reflecting the opinion of their readers, and that means by a successful diagnosis of public opinion. Here, no doubt, skill,' courage, and insight come in, and make the best guesser of public opinion the best journalist.
It is because Lord Beaverbrook does not see that the news- papers have failed, and are failing, in their prime duty oft. publicity, and that they must enlighten, but not attempt directly to lead, that his book requires a corrective. In other respects, it is extremely able and full of good things, and gives, a very rational explanation of many dark points in our history, since the Armistice. Of course, it is only one side of the story that he gives us, and it may be that when in the memoirs,. of the future we hear the other we shall find a great deal of divergent matter. Further, there are many matters left dark upon which we should have liked information. For example, we want much to hear from Lord Beaverbrook the truth as to the overthrow of the Asquith Ministry and of the part which Lord Beaverbrook himself is alleged to have played. Was it he, or another, who succeeded in the switching off of his friend, Mr. Bonar Law, from the Asquithian to the Lloyd Georgian side?
I have one more word to say in criticism of this stimulating and intriguing little book. Lord Beaverbrook is too apt to treat the Press as if it were some sort of great abstraction. He falls into the fatal habit of talking of the newspapers as " They." The Press, we are told, did this or that, when what he really means is that a particular section of the Press, acting from particular motives; adopted this or that attitude. There is diversity of opinion even in a Syndicated Press. But this is a small matter. Taken as a whole the book is a live if rather dangerous wire.
Of Lord Beaverbrook's political views there is no need to speak. He denies most strenuously that he has ever been influenced by merely personal reasons in his attacks on politicians, and disclaims any " vendetta " against the Prime Minister. " The differences have been public and not private. But it would only be candid for me to admit that such a suc- cession of grave errors of policy have damaged my belief in Mr. Baldwin's political judgment." We can be confident that Lord Beaverbrook honestly believes himself impartial : we are not so.sure that he alliays sees to the bottom of his own motives.
" J. ST. Loh STRACHEY.
Previous page
