Los Angeles Herald, Volume 37, Number 122, 31 January 1910 — The English Elections [ARTICLE]

The English Elections

Frederic J. Haskin

I rcggSgl ONDON.—The- English news- : fnTja papers in a political cumfj Eb|l paign go quite as wild as the a Paa public speakers or their 9JJTS friend*, the hecklers. The BBKBgfl] independent journal is all but unknown; every newspaper Is a party organ, and everyone of them goes its full length in praise of its candidates and in derogation of those of the other party. The Liberal newspapers refer to their Conservative contemporaries as the Yellow Press, always with capital letters. The Tories retort by calling the Radical papers "socialistic rags." But neither ever admits defects In its own party or sees virtue in the opposition. It may be said that many Afnerean newspapers are quite the same during political campaigns, and it is true in many Instances, so far as (lie editorial columns are concerned, But no dally newspaper In the United States, however partisan on its editorial page, would dare to use its news columns as do the British papers. The' British press for so many years lias congratulated Itself upon its superiority above American journalism that even Americans are inclined to ere, the English boasts. It is true that big headlines are not used in the English papers, and therefore the- outward and visible signs so often associated with yellow journalism are not In evidence n England. But it is possible to in- "yellow" in small type, and even under small headlines },;,.!, give no hint whatever of the nature or character (tt the article which follows. Tin- methods of the British press in campaign time leave no doubt on that score,

In the first place, nearly every English newspaper occupies the relation of "organ" to one of the two principal parties, and nearly everyone is further identified with some, particular -clique ,or following. The party organs are as slavishly devoted to partisan Interests as American newspapers were forty years ago. \

During this parliamentary campaign one of the London evening papers published an article upon the sensational press in the United States, declaring that the "authorities" in America recognized that something must be done to correct the evils 'if the utter and absolute untrustworthlness of the American press. In the .--111111' article it was charged that thoughtful Americans fear that the United Stat is about to come under the domination of a newspaper oligarchy, representing the worst and most sensational,"section,' of the American press. The article, concluded with an Indictment of the American newspapers tor the "Impropriety" of each newspaper having its own policy with respect to public affairs. At that time the campaign was in its climacteric, week, and the newspapers were flooded with election news—vastly more space being devoted to polities than is given by American newspapers. One newspaper had a review, by constituencies, of all 'the London and nearby contests. In each and every case the special correspondent pointed out that the "right man" could not possibly fail of election. An opposition newspaper on the same day. in the news columns, claimed every one of these seats for its party, each paper deploring the Indecent tactics of the opposition party in each constituency, and each accused the other of all sorts of outrages and misdemeanors.

Mr. Lloyd-George in a speech about the merchant marine referred to the British tonnage of eleven millions. The telegraph wires got twisted and in many newspapers he was made to say 1,100,000,000, The error was palpable, but the Conservative press gave great apace and prominent headlines to what was called another example of the chancellor's inexactitude. Immediate correction was made, of course, but many of the papers did not print it. One of the principal morning papers printed the correction, but placed it without a headline as a twoline note under a letter from a contributor gently calling Mr. LloydGeorge a liar. Over the whole was a prominent headline, "The Chancellor's Error."

The principal Liberal newspapers, Instead of devoting space to an exposition , of the issues they represented, printed long accounts of the heckling of peers and stories of the unpopularity of the Tory leaders. They made no effort to refute the arguments of the other party by publishing news articles giving the facts in the controversy, but contented themselves with long and heavy editorials about, [he constitutional questions involved. The news columns were devoted entirely to the smallest items of inconsequential news from the various local fights—not one in a thousand of which could get by the desk of an American news editor.

The Conservative newspapers were much more effective in their style of campaigning, although they, laid themselves open to the charge of representing the yellowest of all yellow journalism. , To read a. stout Tory paper during the campaign one Would

X— How the Newspapers Fight

have believed that the German Invasion could not possibly be postponed tor more than two days; that the whole country was In .financial ruin ami wreck; that the radical lenders were all anarchists with designs on the life and property of all the rich, ami that another Liberal victory would be a license to rob and plunder and Back, No American newspaper in the worst onslaughts against political "burglars'" has ever use*] stronger language than was applied every day in scores of Conservative newspapers to the Liberal leaders.

At the very last of the campaign, just as the polls were opened, the Times, the most staid, dignified and solemn of all journals, compressed its views Into this sentence: "The Liberals apparently rely upon the black bread fiction, at which educated Germany Is laughing, on pension lies, oil Impudent appeals to every form of Ignorance and on the invective of tho gutter."

Probably one-half of the space devoted to politics in the newspapers waa given over to our old friends "P. B. Publico" and '"Veritas." Sometimes these " communications were interestins, but usually they were merely long-winded expositions of personal views or labored and extended explanations of trivial incidents.

a a . The organs on neither side made any use- -of the news article "bearing on controverted policies. Although both parties maintain, effective literary bureaus and sent out great quantities of exceedingly attractive campaign documents and arguments, the newspapers made no use of this material except when (hey reproduced some pictorial poster, or when they quoted from such documents for the purpose of inviting die public to purchase them in pamphlet form.

The "interview," the great American channel of distributing political news and views, is not used at all. The public men make all their announcements and arguments in their speeches; and if occasion demands an Immediate statement it is made in the form of a letter to some political friend, ami the letter is then made public through the press.

One difficulty about the interview in England is that the ordinary newspaper reporters are not given that confidence which is reposed In them by American political leaders. This i.s not because the British reporters are untrustworthy, for the opposite is the case. It is because the stratified and classified constitution of British society makes tin' London reporter get his news from the fourth under-assist-

ant secretary, instead of from the cabinet member himself, . as does the Washington correspondent. Exceptions are made, of course, in favor of the most prominent journalists.'

The Tory papers made the most of Lloyd-George's escape in policeman's clothing from the mob in Birmingham, where he was to address a pro-Boer i ting, and continually reprinted it. They repeated over ami over, after many denials, what was known as th ■" "Lord Savile charge-" or the "Lord Savlle lie," according to your politics that Mr. Lloyd-George had cheered a British defeat In the South African war while in his seat in the commons. At the instance of the chancellor Lord Savile retracted the charge, but the press kept it up.

The Liberal i ewspapers, supporting the government, poked' fun at the noble lords in a fashion Which would have done credit to America's liveliest journals. They said the peers' speeches reeked with the stables and that certain particular peers, naming names, ought to learn how to be gentlemen first and noblemen later.

Compared with American newspapers the British journals in political activity are directed with less skill, are more partisan, are more given over to abuse and unsupported denunciation of the other side.

Charges of corruption do not appear in the British press as freely as they do in the American papers at election times. There are two —corruption is not nearly so prevalent on account Of the stringent laws, and thing:, which are considered corrupt In the United States are here condoned or looked upon as quite right. For instance, the press of an American city would ring with .barges of corruption if "a representative of a certain railroad combine were to run for congress for the express and avowed purpose of representing tlatt railway system. It"' is done by Indirection, of course, but no one would dare to do it openly. 11l England the great business concerns have men in parliament as a matter of j right. English elections are much more free from corruption than American, but the British press cannot successfully claim the same superiority. ' Over here a man who reads the Daily News is utterly impossible as a social acquaintance, thinks the Conservative; while a reader .'if the. Daily Express is looked upon by all cod' Liberals as a potential cracksman. They take things seriously over here. Tomorrow —Arizona.