RELIGIOUS NEWSPAPERS'. [To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—As
I happen to be a regular reader of nearly all the ecclesi- astical journals published in the metropolis, I read with pain, as well as surprise, the following passage in your article on "The Paris Press" :— " Nor have we altogether passed beyond the stage of unfairness and mendacity, for our religious' prints are, with such conspicuous excep- tions as the Guardian, marked by precisely the same qualities as the Paris Press. They systematically give only their own side of every question, and as systematically blacken the character of all who defi- antly disagree with them. No private virtues or public services are a safeguard against their calumnies. Yet, of course, the writers of the 'religious' newspapers are not consciously unfair or mendacious. They give but one side of a question because their journals exist for the very purpose of showing that there is but one side, and that all who say there are two deserve to be punished with hell-fire."
This is a very severe judgment, and one which could, I think, be completely justified in only a few cases. But it is to its indis- criminateness that I object, since it applies to a whole class of journals a description deserved only by some of the number.
There are, I admit, certain Church of England newspapers, the tone of which cannot be too strongly reprobated ; but I am glad to say I do not know of one Nonconformist journal, of the class generally designated "religious," which deserves to be condemned for "unfairness and mendacity,"—for "systematically blackening the character of all who defiantly disagree with them," for their calumnies, and for their readiness to consign to "hell-fire" all who differ from them.
A few years ago I perhaps could not have spoken so confidently, but now the facts justify the contradiction which I venture to offer. No doubt, all these journals have some special weaknesses or faults of their own, but is not that equally true of the secular journals ? Are even the admirers of the Spectator unable to detect anything objectionable in the general method of their favourite [We believe our statement was too unqualified, and applied more to religious journals of the past than the present. On reflection, we could name several papers, chiefly denominational, which, however narrow, are thoroughly fair in intention to their opponents. But no doubt fairness of intention is still com- patible with far less fairness in reality in religious journals than in journals of other kinds.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
