JOURNALISTS AND SIGNED ARTICLES.
[TO THY EDITOR. OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—A point of journalistic ethics will, I think, interest the Spectato,..
The Daily Chronicle has recently published a series of articles under the heading "Game and the Land." These appeared, in the most prominent position in the paper, on March 31st, April 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 8th. Under the title in each issue was printed " By Max Pemberton, J.P.," and the scope of the series was indicated by an editorial intro- duction which referred to Mr. Pemberton as a popular novelist, a sportsman, and a Justice of the Peace who " has had many opportunities of watching the administration of the Game Laws and the hardships inflicted upon the villages by the tyranny of shooting tenants' and others."
When the series was finished I wrote a reply and sent it to the editor of the Daily Chronicle. The articles betrayed a ludicrous ignorance of the Game Laws and of shooting in general. For instance, the writer of them asserted that a tenant farmer " must not touch the destructive hare between March 1st and July 31st, the season during which it works most havoc with his crops." Of course, the tenant farmer may shoot, snare, or take hares all the year round. There were other equally absurd statements made in the articles.
My reply was published in the Daily Chronicle of Apri129th, and I supposed that the matter would then drop. Not at all. On May 5th a letter appeared signed by Mr. Max Pemberton in which occurs the following passage: "I must excuse myself responding to much that the Shooting Editor of the Field has written, for the simple reason that I did not write the parti- cular paragraphs attacked. Most of these, I think, will be found in the appendix to my articles, written by another gentleman, who, I am sure, is very well able to take care of himself."
Now, Sir, every passage which I " attacked " was taken verbatim from the series which appeared under Mr. Max Pemberton's name. I could not have quoted from any "appendix," etc., for the simple reason that no such appendix was published. I wrote, therefore, to the editor of the Daily Chronicle pointing out that Mr. Pemberton was denying that he had written what he had signed with his name. In reply I received a note from the editor informing me that he did not propose to publish my letter. I should like to have been able to quote his note here, but (although it was not so marked) he has since asked me to regard it as a private communication. I think, however, I ought not to be debarred from stating that it corroborated Mr. Pemberton's statement.
I ask, as a journalist, if this ought to happen. If a writer is entitled to deny responsibility for statements which appear in an article which he signs, where, as journalists, are we ? Where are we from any other point of view P—I am, Sir, &c.,
THE SHOOTING EDITOR OF THE "FIELD."
[Subject to s.ny explanation or correction which the editor of the Daily Chronicle may be in a position to give, we should say that the general principle did not admit of doubt. An editor does not insert statements of his own into signed articles, for to do so would be to mislead the public. Other- wise the public, while thinking they were reading their favourite author Smith, might be betrayed into admiration for Jones. Correcting a date or a split infinitive is another matter. The insertion of passages afterwards blandly dis- claimed by the supposed author strikes us as wholly mediaeval. The scholiasts no doubt embellished the classics without warning, but they are hardly examples for modern journalists. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
