THE " SPECTATOR " AND THE "DAILY NEWS."
[TO THE EDITOR OE THZ " SPECTATOR."]
SIB,—Permit me a word in reply to the characteristic reference to the Daily News in your issue of the 23rd inst. Commenting on Mr. Keir Hardie's letter in our columns in which he asked: "Was the Foreign Secretary particeps criminis by his inaction in this crime [the execution of Ferrer] ? " you say : "This letter, be it noted, was printed
in the Daily News without a word of editorial remonstrance." A newspaper has no more responsibility for the questions of its correspondents than the Speaker of the House of Commons has for the questions of Members. It is an open platform, and the editorial footnote, except in cases in which the opinions of the newspaper itself are in question, is a gratuitous intrusion.—I am, Sir, &c., [We cannot agree with the editor of the Daily News. An editor should in fairness, if space allows, publish letters con- trary to the views of his paper, but if he is to avoid miscon- ception he should, when the letters are written by politicians with whom he is generally in sympathy, insert a word of editorial remonstrance when they are of the unfair character of Mr. Keir Hardie's letter. We do not, of course, suggest that every letter must be held to represent the editorial view unless some special evidence to the contrary is given. We ourselves often publish without comment letters with which we are in disagreement. All depends on the character of the letter. We must repeat, then, that a letter like Mr. Keir Hardie's should not have appeared without remonstrance from the editor, unless, of course, he saw nothing objection- able in its tone. In that case no doubt protest was not to be expected.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
