United Colleges - Vox Yearbook (Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)

Page 24 text:

WHEN YOU CALL TO SEE YOUR GIRL AND YOU FIND SOME CHAP HAS BEAT YOU TO IT - . .

Page 23 text:

GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS By R. J. Leighton “Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour: England hath need of thee; she is a fen Of stagnant waters;” A NY perusal of Canadian history cannot but reveal the fact that during two of its most dynamic periods, the eras of struggle for responsible government, and of confederation, the part played by the press and its representatives in both the political and social life of Canada, was outstanding. No little of both the political and social history of those days may be effectively summed up in the works and careers of their newspaper editors. Howe and Brown, Mackenzie and Hincks, to mention but the more prominent, are still symbols of fascinating interest. Their careers and personalities spell out much of what is really significant for us as students of those remote and shadowy ages, and their importance to the daily life of their contemporary readers, whom they delighted or antagonized, was greater still. When one glances at the daily press of the present generation, no such impression is gained. Very little of the leadership of the community on local, national, or international questions, comes from that once honored profession and institution. One does not live one’s life today, as did so many grand old Ontario-ans, under the guidance of the “Bible and the Globe.” The only Canadian spiritual descend¬ ed of those early “Knights of the pen,” the respected editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, despite his many contributions to the life of his times, makes a rather insignificant figure in comparison. And he is but one, whereas they were almost legion. This change in affairs journalistic cannot be accounted for, as some would have us believe, by saying that the press of today has become too partisan and hence ineffective. Our publications are not partisan—they are propagandist. Editors in these enlightened times are but shadows of their earlier prototypes. Those journalists of an earlier age really knew what wormwood and bitter aloes meant, and beside them the present crop seem purveyors of insipid fancy rather than the dispensers of satiric but terse truth. In spite of what some would call their partiality, or partisanship, or prejudice, those earlier journalists of Canada did somehow manage to tell the truth, and at the same time continue to be read and have their opin¬ ions sincerely considered and accounted something. They spoke continuously and fervently over a period of years in which great events were taking place; yet they managed consistently to say [21]

Page 25 text:

things that were, and still are, considered significant. Can any in Canada today match such a record as that, or does the future seem likely to serve us better in this connection? Partisanship will not suffice to explain the present innocuous position of the press. Neither can we ascribe the disparity noticed to the invasion of the advertiser into the realm of journalism. The writer had the opportunity of viewing an old copy of the Globe recently, and the ratio of advertising to other printed material in it was quite equal to that present in the modern dailies. The advertising has changed in form, it is true, and the present advertiser is doubtless quick to demand that due respect be paid his interests; but these earlier advertisers were also problems for editors. The advertising was there, and advertisers are a group whose characteristics are innate and similar—be they of the age of Solomon, Edward III, or George VI, the advertiser constitutes a serious challenge to editorial author¬ ity in any generation. But whereas men such as Brown, Howe and Co., were able to overcome or disregard this policy-pointing group, their descendants in the journalistic line are apparently incapable of so doing. The difference in part would seem to be with the journalists themselves. There is a failure of spirit among modern newspaper¬ men not evidenced by their predecessors. Today’s crop is in more senses than one, one of “lesser men.” And when the added mechan¬ ical advantages of the last six decades are considered, the outlook is gloomy indeed. But to describe the lost influence of the press solely in terms of the moral fibre and character of the journalists and to designate this alone as the cause of that lost prestige is, of course, ridiculous. That is not to minimize the importance of character, as revealed in the men of the press, as a factor in the present marked decline of that institution’s influence. But to look at the matter fairly, it becomes necessary to confess that the modern reader is a much poorer speci¬ men than his counterpart of the past. It is necessary to admit that to a large degree the newspaper mu st print what its readers will pay to have printed. The modern reader rarely possesses the interest in important things required to force journalists to provide such reading material. Too seldom do the readers of today get beyond the sport page and funnies, or the society column and the front page scandal sheet. When they do turn to the places which purport to deal with the serious in life, little of real value is to be found. A vicious circle has been uncovered by asking these impertinent questions in regard to modem journalism. It is a “sign of our times,” as Carlyle would have said. Democracy in this instance has evi- [23]