THEPRESS AND POLITICAL PERSONALITIES.
IN his speech at Edinburgh Lord Rosebery had an amusing passage complaining good-naturedly of the low view of his character and prospects taken by the Press. To him it must be a novel experience to find himself out of favour with journalists, for at one time there was no man whom they were more naturally predisposed to like. It is a great advantage, as Matthew Arnold once said of himself, if all people who write feel a kindness towards a man. Lord Rosebery was so brilliant a figure; he had so many interests in his life, so many facets to his character ; be was a man of letters with so taking a style and sense of humour ; he furnished at all seasons such ex- cellent "copy," that the ordinary writer of articles had a predisposition to praise him. Even his opponents on the Press for the most part used Lord Rosebery as Izaak Walton counselled fishermen to use a frog, " tenderly, as if they loved him." And now, behold a change. It has become as fashionable to decry Lord Rosebery as it once was to praise him, the central figure for the admiration of the Press being at present Mr. Chamberlain. Lord Rosebery went on to deplore the con- version of the majority of newspapers to Protectionism, and to declare that, believing as he did in the power of the Press, he could not see how the reiteration of Pro- tectionist arguments every morning and every evening must not make for conversion, or at least that uncertainty which is nearly as fatal. We regret, of course, the side which many of the chief papers have taken in the present discussion, but we are not disposed to rate the importance of the fact too high. A good journalist wields a great power, but the Press as a whole does not seem to us that omnipotent engine of conversion which Lord Rosebery assumes it to be.
Stated shortly, our view is this. The Press, as the disseminator of news, is the chief creator of opinion, and, in the second place, the opinions which it expresses very largely govern the form which popular opinion is to take. The ordinary man is colossally arrogant. On what he regards as " a business question " or " a matter of plain common- sense " he will not consciously allow himself to be dictated to by any journalist. In a confused way, after the fashion of English politics, he will build up from odds and ends of experience and fragments of news which he reads in his morning paper a kind of opinion. Now this opinion is based, so far as substance goes, on the material supplied by the Press, and the form in which it appears is largely determined by the manner in which the same views are expressed in the papers. To provide the raw material for, and to determine the form of, popular opinion is to have a chief share in its creation. Popular journalism, indeed, to be successful, must be in sympathy with popular views ; it must lead, but not too far in advance. If every paper in the kingdom were to declare to-morrow that unfettered Trade-Unionism was a good thing, and to go on declaring it for years, Englishmen would not be in the least inclined to change their views. We can perfectly well imagine a. case where the British Press would take one view and the British nation another. Such a state of affairs existed during the American Civil War, when British newspapers were nearly unanimous against the North, while a considerable majority of the British people were in its favour. But we believe it to be substantially true that the Press both shapes and reflects national policy. It cannot create opinion from the void, but it can provide the material for it and it can determine its form. Any notable political question is argued by both sides far more in the words of the journalists than of the politicians who support them.
But in the case of personalities the power of the Press seems to us to be comparatively small. In literature its approval may accelerate a man's rise to notoriety or fame, but not greatly. Good work will win recognition without it ; and in any case it has no power to preserve a reputa- tion. Not all the eulogies of all the journalists in the world will make men read an author one day after they have proved his inferiority. In politics, where success depends more largely upon a kind of advertisement, the Press has a greater power. It can bring a man into the public eye, and give him his chance early. If one man's every utter- ance is reported in " leaded " type,_ and another's not reported at all, or hidden away among the advertisements, there can be no question which will first, in the phrase dear to journalism, to 4111M1111k" And having arrived, he may stay there for si.latter time . if bolstered up by the judicious support of the Press. Baas in literature, he cannot stay for long unless he has in himself the qualities of endurance. Press support may slightly accelerate success, but it cannot ensure it, and it cannot hinder it. No man, as Dr. Johnson said, was ever written down except by himself. The saying is equally true of politics. No newspaper animosity will ever pre- vent an able man from coming to power, and no Press crusade will drive him from it, unless the Press is not the creator but the exponent of opinion. The people reserve their right to like or dislike of their own accord any prominent figure, and no artificial Press crusade, in the face of what ordinary men think, can ever hope to succeed. To abuse a man roundly is merely to force him into notice, as in the case of Lord Randolph Churchill; and the more subtle device of a conspiracy of silence in the long run defeats its own end. It should, however, be said, in fairness to our profession, that a free Press will rarely find itself in opposition to the popular admiration for a great statesman. It is more likely to come into conflict with current opinion by insisting out of due season upon the merits of some neglected leader whom the people are slow to recognise.
Lord Rosebery may take heart of grace. No statesman was ever damned by unsympathetic newspapers. The favour of journalists, whether for persons or policies, must often be determined by reasons other than the merits. It is natural to praise what interests you, and to be interested in what makes your work easy and pleasant. A brilliant politician, a striking, if fallacious, policy, often require an austere journalistic conscience to oppose. Many news- papers, to take Lord Rosebery's example, are for fiscal reform, as at one time they were for Lord Roseberf. Here is a scheme, new, imaginative, with a pleasant flavour of heterodoxy, supported, too, by the most conspicuons personality of modern politics. Can we wonder, then, that many journalists give in their allegiance to so novel and brilliant a creed, rather than burn dreary incense at the neglected shrine of common-sense ?
Previous page
