[From the Times, Baltimore, Md., Jan. 8, 1923]

All newspapers do not supplement the breakfast or dinner with that degree of satisfaction that readers have the right to anticipate. A newspaper's influence is measured altogether ... by the degree of its public service. To be influential in great degree, newspapers must have certain high . . . policies. They should be charitable and benevolent; nonpartisan and unbiased; assist in electing better men to public office; constructive; support the high ideals of church and state; also of stage and screen; encourage public utilities to give reasonable service at reasonable rates; throw their protection around the banks, and turn the light upon all swindles and swindlers; aid the development of rivers and harbors. Newspapers should be fearless in exposing fraud and trickery, in resistance to unreasonable attempts at encroachments through legislation upon certain inviolable rights of men and women; fearless in uncovering crime and positive indecency; fearless in battling the narcotic monster. They should be zealous on behalf of the public health; and to that end insist upon pure foods and clean sports. They ought to be intolerant toward low vices and the pitfalls for boys and girls of tender age. And then they ought to do their utmost for world peace. The world needs more newspapers that will live up to these ideals. Such is the type of newpaper that wields influence all around. And every man who contributes to it performs great public service.

[From the Independent, Stockton, Calif., March 1, 1923] The Independent recently referred editorially to the "better newspaper" campaign being made in Los Angeles by civic organizations, and commended the canons for editors prepared by this committee. . . The Christian Science Monitor, which is itself a fine example of clean journalism, shows this view, basing it largely on an analysis of the type of people of the southern city. The Monitor, in discussing the matter, says: "The dispatch, in the news columns of this paper to-day, relative to the effort of the citizens of Los Angeles to impress upon their local newspapers the desirability of a higher type of journalism, is an interesting indication of the trend of public sentiment." . . . This Californian revolt is to be taken merely as a symptom of conditions existing throughout the country which will at no distant date become equally manifest in other sections. For it is only too apparent that the extremes to which the degradation of journalism in the United States has proceeded have caused a revolt on the part of newspaper readers already visible to shrewd observers in the journalistic profession. It is symptomatic that The Christian Science Monitor, standing as an exemplar of clean journalism, should have its circulation bounded by no consideration of distance or of time. It finds its welcome by the tens of thousands on the Pacific Coast and in the United Kingdom. It meets the growing demand for a newspaper addressed to intelligent and cultivated people. Beyond doubt the force of its example is not lost upon its contemporaries; and out of just such instances as this one in Los Angeles will ultimately grow a cleaning up of the entire newspaper field.

[S. Edward Young in the Brooklyn Citizen, Brooklyn, N. Y., Jan. 29, 1923]

The intense religious discussions now going on indicate a new interest in spiritual things. Newspapers are giving a large space to chat going on in the religious world. That implies an unusual amount of attention by the masses of the people, and out of it must come progress in the affairs of men's souls. . . . And chief of all, I suspect, is the conviction that, after all the talk and trying out of the other schemes, the only hope of mankind is religion pure and undefiled. Poor old Europe at this hour is a pathetic confession that none of the much-heralded nostrums will avail. We witness around us the fact that laws are futile, unless they have a spiritual reinforcement in the consciences of the people. A true revival of religion, and nothing else, can save the day and save the race—and it seems to be almost at hand."

[From the Journal, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Jan. 12, 1923] Numerous good women of Southern California, undoubtedly inspired by right ideals, have begun a crusade for the improvement of the press of that state. One of their leaders, Mrs. William P. Cunningham, explaining the aims of the movement, is reported as saying: "With such an illustration of the practicability of clean journalism as has been furnished by The Christian Science Monitor, which has proved the advantage of printing only the good news and refraining from featuring crime and scandal, the organizations promoting this movement are encouraged to believe that the Los Angeles newspapers will cooperate to bring about a better condition of the press." . . . When more men and women come to interest themselves in things that count, that are sane and serious, rather than sensational and foolish, the daily press will very quickly respond.

[From Chat, Brooklyn, N. Y., Jan. 20, 1923] The newspaper that is constructive is the paper that is read. It is the paper with the circulation. It is the paper that has the confidence of its readers, of its advertisers, and of the public in general. The constructive newspaper recognizes no party, no creed. Its one aim is to promote good citizenship, to aid every movement that has as its aim the promotion of legitimate material advancement and the elevation of moral tone. It lends itself to no scheme of selfish aggrandizement; rather is it anxious to avoid even the appearance of seeking any end by unfair means. The constructive newspaper would rather go out of business than sacrifice the ideal of working for the good of all.

[From the Daily Times, Visalia, Calif., March 10, 1923]

Exactly what benefit to anybody seems to be derived by a newspaper rushing into print with reports of damages sustained by various crops in the region which it is the selfassumed business of the paper to boost all it can, consistently, does not appear quite clear. And because a large percentage of these early and hastily prepared reports, usually gleaned from irresponsible or pessimistically inclined persons, include so-called damages greatly exaggerated, it makes the excuse for such printed matter all the more mystifying to the individual who is self-taught to see the sunshine instead of the shadow. Each succeeding spring, some papers, acting in direct opposition to what they shout as their policy for benefiting the community, the county, the valley, and the state, blow off most of the blossoms from the fruit trees, freeze the buds, congeal the tender little setting fruits; later they choke off the sustenance of the developing crops or drown out, scald, and rust the grain with untimely rains or flood conditions! . . . the province of the press to present the news—the things happening within its field or in wider territory, secondarily, the happenings of seeming interest to many readers; and it becomes the duty, and is the

prerogative of the newspaper, to print at times some conditions that are not at all reassuring from any cheerful standpoint; but the well-directed, care-exercising, fact-loving publication will be extremely careful of what it is placing upon the "live copy-hook" in regard to left-handed boost stuff or crop-slaying conditions.

[From the Journal of Commerce, Chicago, 111., March 21, 1923] If a man can say, after reading a newspaper, that hge has a better knowledge of world, state, and city affairs of moment than he had before reading it; that his thoughts have been turned to subjects which have strengthened his hold on general intelligence; that he is intellectually freshened and better equipped for his day's work, he may be sure his selection was wise. Newspapers are potent in influencing minds. When a man's thoughts are scattered after reading a worthless paper, exactly as they are when a garrulous bore has got admission to his office on a busy morning, he has made an unwise selection. The right newspaper will give him consciousness of fitness for the day, of a righteous impulse to do his best, and of a sense of increased knowledge of things which bear on his vocation. Choice of newspapers is very like choice of friends.

[From the Journal, Dayton, Ohio, Feb. 24, 1923]

This newspaper must first of all be clean; it must be fair; it must be honest and without malice in its opinions and expressions; and it must, at all times, devote itself unflinchingly and fearlessly to the public service in the interest of the masses of the people. It must always combat evil and injustice. It must always fight for progress and reform. It must never tolerate corruption. It must be in sympathy with the poor and the unfortunate. It must stand for good government, civic patriotism, and the public welfare. For Dayton it must always stand, with an unselfish devotion, for the achievement of the finest ideals, of every high purpose of every enterprise, of every step in the march of progress; in national affairs, for the truest patriotism and for . . . freedom, equality, tolerance, and undying love of country.

[From the Times, Roanoke, Va., Feb. 24, 1923]

We stand for a decent press, we repeat. We also stand for a free press. But if the press cannot be both free and decent—which God forbid—it should at least be decent. The English are on the right track. Divorce court news . . . cannot edify and does not dignify. There has been entirely too much of this ... in the columns of the American press of late. It is time to call a halt. Public opinion could call a halt; but for some reason public opinion seems slow in crystallizing in this matter. For one, we should like nothing better than an outspoken and unmistakable declaration of public sentiment against aught that is suggestive, aught that is questionable, aught that is "off color" in the public press. If this be narrow, then we are well content to be so characterized.

[From the Rural Press, South Dakota, February, 1923]

"Treat all religious matters reverently,"—a rule adopted by President Harding for the guidance of the editors and reporters of his paper at Marion, Ohio, would seem to be an excellent rule for all editors to follow. Criticism of another's religious beliefs never benefits any one, and invariably injures the critic and offends the persons criticized. The charge that some editors seem to think that any persons holding religious beliefs which differ from theirs are "fair game," should not be one which could be said to apply to South Dakota editors.