The Guardian of Wednesday publishes a correspondence between the Rev.
Malcolm MacColl and the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, which throws a light of some interest on the canons of journalistic fairness acknowledged by that clever but fanatical paper. Mr. MacColl having lectured in Lambeth on the Christian provinces of Turkey, the Daily News' report of his lecture was criticised by a correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, signing himself " F. R. G. S.," under the lively heading, "Impalement of Mr. Ma,cColl." Mr. MacColl, in a short and very temperate letter to the Pall Mall, pointed out, first, that the Daily News' report of his lecture was not fairly quoted ; and next, that those of his statements said to be wholly without foundation were not Ms statements at all, but those of high official authorities. This letter was refused admission, the editor, after some delay, stating that he could not admit to writers who conceived themselves to be misrepresented by any journal, the right to be heard in reply, "except under certain condi- tions," of which the chief seemed to be that the reply should not be " evasive " or otherwise objectionable, on the ground that "it is calculated to mislead the public mind, or to propagate false or injurious impressions." Now, of course, a reply which simply corrects misquotations and brings good evidence of the truth of statements traversed, may well produce what a fanatical politician regards as " false or injurious impressions," and there- fore be refused admission. And that appears to be well within the drift of the Pall Mall's "condition,"—for we remember that last year, when there occurred a similarly fruitless effort by the same writer to obtain justice from the same journal, and when we admitted Mr. MacColl's rectification into our own correspondence, his original assailant in the Pall Mall admitted very candidly in our own columns that he had misquoted Mr. MacColl, and apologised for his misquotation, while the readers of the journal in which that misquotation appeared, were never per- mitted to hoar of this rather important acknowledgment. The Pall Mall, in short, weighs the evidence of its antagonists much as the Turkish Courts weigh Christian evidence,—i.e., ignores it, if it comes into conflict with the evidence of a true believer.
Previous page
