Hearst’s Peculiar Papers

     In the arraignment of Editor Hearst there has been some unfairness. He is entitled to credit for some things. He has had the enterprise to build up great journals. He has called about him men of brains and experience. If he has desired the services of any writer or artist he has not hesitated to offer the requisite salary and more. Thus he has done much for the working newspaper man. Personally he is generous, and, strange as it may seem to those who judge him by his sheets, modest. In a quiet way he does more for charity than he does through his several publications, heralding the latter feat by blare of horn. There is nothing more to be said in favor of his type of journalism. His papers are all rotten to the core. No information given in them can be accepted without corroborative evidence. Their editorial opinion is absolutely without value. They seem devoid of sense, honor or decency.
     Since the murder of President McKinley, Hearst has been charged with the creation of the state of mind that made the murder possible. It is with regret the conclusion is reached that the arguments supporting this contention are sound. A recent interview with Goldman set forth her opinion of Mr. McKinley. Of itself, this opinion would have no weight, but when it is couched in terms that might have been taken bodily from the columns of the Journal the time has come to think.
     The Brooklyn Eagle is a reliable paper. It is conservative enough, and not given to hysteria. The Eagle tells of a dispute between an Irish mechanic and a German grocer. The grocer had said he was not sorry Mr. McKinley had been shot. The mechanic, at first inclined to knock him down, decided to argue the matter. He asked the German to explain. This the grocer did by showing the files of the Journal and the World, with their uncouth and villainous cartoons and their bestial editorials. In these the president who now lies dead, and over whom a nation weeps, was portrayed as the head of the trusts, the tool of capital, the man whose delight was to grind the laboring element. Nothing could have been more vilely false, and yet this is the character of the information that Hearst has been giving to his subscribers. The ignorant among them have been misled. The German was honest in his convictions. Had Mr. McKinley been the sort of executive painted, his removal would have been a blessing. Then who is to blame for a condition of mind that tolerates a Goldman and arms her admirers? The Hearsts of the land must bear a share of the guilt.
     Now with fair words such editors try to make amends. The Hearst papers and the Oregonian sit on the stool of repentance and slobber their woe. When were they giving out their real sentiments? Were they all the time hypocrites, doing a harm they had no intent to do, or are they hypocrites now?