Publication information |
Source: Review Source type: magazine Document type: editorial Document title: “How to Combat Yellow Journalism” Author(s): anonymous Date of publication: 1902 Volume number: 9 Issue number: 1 Pagination: 7-8 |
Citation |
“How to Combat Yellow Journalism.” Review 1902 v9n1: pp. 7-8. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
yellow journalism. |
Named persons |
Leon Czolgosz; James Gibbons; John Ireland; William McKinley; Henry Codman Potter. |
Document |
How to Combat Yellow Journalism
Yellow journalism, against which there was such
an outcry immediately after the assassination of President McKinley, has outlived
the onslaught and continues its nefarious work.
The discussion incident to Czolgosz’s detestable
crime has, however, developed one fact of the first importance. It has shown
that the public realizes that the chief strength of such journalism to-day comes
from the support which distinguished men have given to its worst representatives.
Along with the perception of this fact has come a realization of the responsibility
of such leaders for their endorsement of demoralizing publications.
The only dissent from the position that every
self-respecting citizen ought to make it a matter of conscience not to contribute
to the yellow journals and not to buy them, has come from a certain clergyman;
to-wit, that this is the best way to reach a great audience. “If we desire to
reach the great mass of citizens, do we do wrong by putting our teachings in
the place where the audience sought will find it?”
The answer is simple. We ought to put our teaching
in the place where the audience sought will find it, provided—but only provided—that
this is a place where people may properly look for anything. Obscene books are
published and secure a large sale, despite the most vigorous efforts to suppress
them. No class of people need a good lesson in morals more than the purchasers
of such books. But Cardinal Gibbons or Archbishop Ireland or “Bishop” Potter—all
men who have at one time or other contributed to such papers as the New York
Journal—would have no right to contribute decent matter to an indecent
book on the theory that they might do good to its readers, even if the publisher
could demonstrate to them that he might thus put their teaching in a place where
hundreds of thousands would find it—simply because people have no right to look
there. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.”
The yellow journal is only less objectionable
than the publication which crosses the line of decency drawn by the law and
which therefore may be suppressed through the courts. As the Evening Post
very correctly remarks, its pervading spirit is one of vulgarity, indecency,
and reckless sensationalism; it steadily violates the canons alike of good taste
and sound morals; it cultivates false standards of life, and demoralizes its
readers; it recklessly uses language which may incite the crack-brained to lawlessness;
its net influence makes the world worse.
If we could suppress such a newspaper by law,
without trenching upon the freedom of the press, the problem would be solved.
This seems impossible, but the same end may be reached more [7][8]
slowly by the force of public sentiment. Respectable working-people can be made
to feel that they ought not to buy a yellow journal, that it is not a fit paper
for their homes, that their sons and daughters are harmed by reading it—in short,
that they should treat it practically as they would treat an indecent publication.
But our prelates and other leaders of public opinion
can not hope to turn respectable working-people from reading yellow journals
so long as they contribute to such journals. Indeed they can not consistently
say a word against them so long as they thus endorse them.
The yellow journals care nothing about Bishop
So and So’s or Father Who-you-Please’s ideas on the labor or any other question.
All that they want an occasional article from them for, is that they may advertise
them as contributors and endorsers; that they may boast that the best men in
the community believe in them; that they may persuade the credulous that “the
Journal (or the American, or the Examiner, or the Post-Dispatch)
can not be so bad, or Bishop N. or Father X. wouldn’t write for it.”
Of what use is it for any rightminded father to
object to his son’s reading a yellow journal, or for any careful mother to warn
her daughter against its corrupting influence, when the child can retort with
truth that the most respectable and saintly men write especially for it?
The whole matter is very simple. Are yellow journals
bad for the community? If so, they should be discouraged in every proper way
by every good citizen, and particularly by every teacher of religion or morality.
The most effective way is never to have anything to do with them.