where he received enlarged notions of government. He then studied the slavery question in its relations to the nation, and became the leader of the opposition to the extension of slavery. But Lincoln's political ideas outgrew his own country, and the ideals of his democracy rose above national selfishness. He impressed himself upon the political thought of the world. As Lloyd George has pointed out, in his life Lincoln was considered a great American; at his death he had world influence; and now he "belongs to the common people in every land".

A few years ago, in a discussion of Lincoln before a Philadelphia audience made up chiefly of recently arrived immigrants, a Russian who spoke broken English made the statement that a fugitive sentiment of Lincoln's concerning liberty, "He who would be no slave must consent to have no slave," which he had seen in faraway Russia, had served him as a beacon light leading him to Lincoln's country. Those acquainted with the thought of the common people in Japan say that in that country Lincoln is the best known of all Americans, and that he typifies the idea of liberty to the Japanese people. Count Tolstoi held that Lincoln was too big to be owned by one nation; that he belonged to the whole world.

In recent years men have asked over and over, What would Lincoln have done in this or that emergency? Of one thing we may rest assured: his political ideas would have grown with the nation's need and the world's need. Above all the men of his time he saw the hand of God in the affairs of this world. He yielded to the Divine leadership, and under God gave this nation a new birth of freedom so that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" should not perish from the earth. In the times of new national peril, men may well draw from him fresh lessons of faith in the overruling power of Almighty God, and patience in dealing with the trying problems with which they are confronted. The world will enthrone justice and good will, this nation of ours will be safe, the destiny of the Commonwealth will be secure, the land in which we live will be a goodly place in which to dwell, as long as men emulate the virtues and imitate the action of this "first" American.

CHEESMAN A. HERRICK.

PUBLICITY-AND ITS ETHICS

BY ATHERTON BROWNELL

IN the November issue of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW Professor Roscoe C. E. Brown discussed what he was pleased to call The Menace to Journalism, with a mind as impartial and in a tone as calmly judicial as was possible once he had selected a title which left little to be said except to pass sentence upon the guilty culprit. The "menace" to which he referred is publicity or propaganda-using the terms interchangeably-and the offenders are the press agents, or publicity men-likewise considering these as synonyms, which they have long since ceased to bewho are represented as being parasites who have colonized in great numbers on the Fourth Estate. Apparently the only distinction that Professor Brown would make is that the old-time and smilingly tolerated press agent of the circus "left the reporters to go their way unaided to get their news as best they could, and to present it with that approximation of truth that comes from the detached appraisement of conflicting statements and dug-out facts"; whereas, the modern publicity representatives of great corporations, banking interests, public movements or philanthropies "stand guard at many sources of news, fending off the too keen inquirer and leaving the newspaper the choice of letting itself be spoon-fed or going empty".

That the guileful, often amusing and usually harmless tactics of the old-time press agent have been developed of late years into a well paid and unusually busy profession of publicity as applied to large interests, may not be denied, and the first reflex is naturally upon the making of a modern daily newspaper. It has emerged from under the flap of the circus tent and from the narrow confines of the theatre box-office, until it holds a place of considerable dignity and importance in the public activities of to-day. It is only in comparatively a few editorial sanctums, though in many publishers' offices, that the modern publicity

man is looked upon as an outlaw, conducting a kind of guerrilla warfare against which the advertising department must arm itself.

For a number of years the American Newspaper Publishers' Association has maintained a standing committee to fight this fancied menace to its revenues, suspended in its activities only during the war when it was considered to be a patriotic duty to lend the power of the press to the propaganda work of the Government in its many forms. Yet it may be possible to show that so far from being a detriment to the material interests of the publishers, the work of the intelligent and resourceful publicity man may be and can be a direct stimulant to the creation of great national advertisers, thus dovetailing with the purpose of the publishers and the advertising agents.

Professor Brown, however, dignifies the discussion by placing it upon a higher ethical plane for consideration than has hitherto been attempted, and also by removing it as it should be removed from the business offices of the newspapers into the editorial field, thus bringing it into the broader light of the public welfare. In thus stimulating an open discussion of the subject on higher ethical grounds than its effect upon the advertising revenues of the newspapers, Professor Brown has rendered a service that places all parties at interest in his debt.

To the mind of the layman, not particularly versed in the details of the question, but viewing it with a natural shrewdness and innate common sense, there may come the query as to why it is true, as Professor Brown says, that "trained writers are ready to forego the journalist's ideal and give their pens to the service not of society but of a patron's ends" and, he admits, "to the impoverishment of newspaper staffs." Is it true that all these men are apostates, lacking in any idealism that cannot be made subservient to the greater monetary temptations that are held out to them, that they have "forsaken the editorial room for the publicity office"?

Are the old methods of news-gathering so perfect that they cannot be changed in any respect to advantage? Is it not within the bounds of reasonable possibility that these men of superior attainments, having lived in daily intimacy with present-day

conditions of news-gathering, and partly disillusioned thereby, have perceived that there is a function to be performed that has little chance of development in the rush and hurry of the production of a modern daily newspaper, but supplementing it? May it not be that there is another ideal that is worthy of consideration, equally in the interest of society and of the best journalism, this taking the form of the search for and the preparation of real news that is "predigested"-rather than hastily gathered and hurriedly thrown together, given to the public half-baked and not only undigested but actually indigestible?

66

We may not necessarily go so far as to agree entirely with the newspaper cynic who defined "news" as 'any violation of any one of the Ten Commandments", but it is indisputable that in common practice that which is compelling news, that which bears the editorial blue pencilled "must" across its face, is of some sensational happening, something picturesque and attention-arresting, something that can be made into a "story" and the more of "human interest" it possesses the better. Bad news flies fast-it meets the reporter more than half way. Good news is often retiring and conceals itself. The function of the real publicity man is to give it wings. The news prepared by the modern publicity man is the news of construction. It has been sought out from a mass of data or other information in which it is so deeply imbedded that it could never be found by the hurried reporter seeking the news that shrieks aloud to be told. This is the interesting point that Professor Brown raises, and which may broadly cover the entire field of activity of what we may call purposeful publicity, that "whereas the reporter formerly could gain access to corporation heads, make his own inquiries, and ask questions that gave him an insight even if unanswered, now these men will rarely see reporters and screen themselves behind prepared statements".

Access to great corporation heads undoubtedly is more difficult to-day than it was formerly, and equally undoubtedly these corporation heads speak with greater care when they speak at all. When the great anthracite strike of a dozen or so years ago was pending, there were eight or ten corporation heads all being constantly sought by dozens of reporters, more or less competent,

from as many different local papers. Aside from the loss of time from executive duties, nothing but confusion resulted in the public mind from the various digests and interpretations of many not specially informed reporters from the disjointed statements of these several corporation heads. Since the importance of public understanding of the situation was recognized to be important, one man was selected-a trained newspaper man-who became the spokesman for all, thus saving time and clearing the atmosphere of a mass of ignorant speculations. As a rule, the man who is important enough to be sought by the newspapers, and who has any respect for accuracy, has learned that his only safety lies in the prepared statement-not as a shield to protect himself from saying things that he does not want to say, but as a preventative from being made to say things that he has not said.

The strict executive, who will not permit a letter carefully dictated to a competent and tried stenographer to leave his office without re-reading before signing, is expected to deal in an offhand way with the most vital of topics whenever asked to do so by a reporter, and then to permit his views to go out to the world through the mediumship of a man he has perhaps never seen, who relies upon his memory only for faithful transcription, who has no fundamental knowledge of the subject to permit of accurate compression of the essentials into newspaper space and who does not permit the subject of the interview to see what he is to be committed to saying before its publication. This is one of the conditions of news-gathering that Professor Brown would not have changed, yet it is neither fair nor just to place the entire responsibility for misquotation upon the shoulders of the reporter. The plea of having been misquoted is as often, perhaps, because of the fault of him who is interviewed as it is that of the newspaper man. Few men of great executive ability-few men, in fact, of any kind possess the faculty of talking for publication, accurately, interestingly and intelligently. It is an art in itself, usually acquired only by cultivation although, like genius, it is born in a few. Few men who have become authorities on any subject great enough to be sought by the newspapers still retain the thought that others not so familiar with it require a primary exposition of the fundamentals if a clear understanding is to be the result.