it is customary to remark that modern problems cannot easily be attacked because they are so complex. in many cases i believe it is really because they are so simple. nobody would believe in such simplicity of scoundrelism even if it were pointed out. people would say that the truth was a charge of mere melodramatic villainy; forgetting that nearly all villains really are melodramatic. thus, for instance, we say that some good measures are frustrated or some bad officials kept in power by the press and confusion of public business; whereas very often the reason is simple healthy human bribery. and thus especially we say that the yellow press is exaggerative, over-emotional, illiterate, and anarchical, and a hundred other long words; whereas the only objection to it is that it tells lies. we waste our fine intellects in finding exquisite phraseology to fit a man, when in a well-ordered society we ought to be finding handcuffs to fit him.

this criticism of the modern type of righteous indignation must have come into many people's minds, i think, in reading dr. horton's eloquent expressions of disgust at the "corrupt press," especially in connection with the limerick craze. upon the limerick craze itself, i fear dr. horton will not have much effect; such fads perish before one has had time to kill them. but dr. horton's protest may really do good if it enables us to come to some clear understanding about what is really wrong with the popular press, and which means it might be useful and which permissible to use for its reform. we do not want a censorship of the press; but we are long past talking about that. at present it is not we that silence the press; it is the press that silences us. it is not a case of the commonwealth settling how much the editors shall say; it is a case of the editors settling how much the commonwealth shall know. if we attack the press we shall be rebelling, not repressing. but shall we attack it?

now it is just here that the chief difficulty occurs. it arises from the very rarity and rectitude of those minds which commonly inaugurate such crusades. i have the warmest respect for dr. horton's thirst after righteousness; but it has always seemed to me that his righteousness would be more effective without his refinement. the curse of the nonconformists is their universal refinement. they dimly connect being good with being delicate, and even dapper; with not being grotesque or loud or violent; with not sitting down on one's hat. now it is always a pleasure to be loud and violent, and sometimes it is a duty. certainly it has nothing to do with sin; a man can be loudly and violently virtuous—nay, he can be loudly and violently saintly, though that is not the type of saintliness that we recognise in dr. horton. and as for sitting on one's hat, if it is done for any sublime object (as, for instance, to amuse the children), it is obviously an act of very beautiful self-sacrifice, the destruction and surrender of the symbol of personal dignity upon the shrine of public festivity. now it will not do to attack the modern editor merely for being unrefined, like the great mass of mankind. we must be able to say that he is immoral, not that he is undignified or ridiculous. i do not mind the yellow press editor sitting on his hat. my only objection to him begins to dawn when he attempts to sit on my hat; or, indeed (as is at present the case), when he proceeds to sit on my head.

but in reading between the lines of dr. horton's invective one continually feels that he is not only angry with the popular press for being unscrupulous: he is partly angry with the popular press for being popular. he is not only irritated with limericks for causing a mean money-scramble; he is also partly irritated with limericks for being limericks. the enormous size of the levity gets on his nerves, like the glare and blare of bank holiday. now this is a motive which, however human and natural, must be strictly kept out of the way. it takes all sorts to make a world; and it is not in the least necessary that everybody should have that love of subtle and unobtrusive perfections in the matter of manners or literature which does often go with the type of the ethical idealist. it is not in the least desirable that everybody should be earnest. it is highly desirable that everybody should be honest, but that is a thing that can go quite easily with a coarse and cheerful character. but the ineffectualness of most protests against the abuse of the press has been very largely due to the instinct of democracy (and the instinct of democracy is like the instinct of one woman, wild but quite right) that the people who were trying to purify the press were also trying to refine it; and to this the democracy very naturally and very justly objected. we are justified in enforcing good morals, for they belong to all mankind; but we are not justified in enforcing good manners, for good manners always mean our own manners. we have no right to purge the popular press of all that we think vulgar or trivial. dr. horton may possibly loathe and detest limericks just as i loathe and detest riddles; but i have no right to call them flippant and unprofitable; there are wild people in the world who like riddles. i am so afraid of this movement passing off into mere formless rhetoric and platform passion that i will even come close to the earth and lay down specifically some of the things that, in my opinion, could be, and ought to be, done to reform the press.

first, i would make a law, if there is none such at present, by which an editor, proved to have published false news without reasonable verification, should simply go to prison. this is not a question of influences or atmospheres; the thing could be carried out as easily and as practically as the punishment of thieves and murderers. of course there would be the usual statement that the guilt was that of a subordinate. let the accused editor have the right of proving this if he can; if he does, let the subordinate be tried and go to prison. two or three good rich editors and proprietors properly locked up would take the sting out of the yellow press better than centuries of dr. horton.

second, it's impossible to pass over altogether the most unpleasant, but the most important part of this problem. i will deal with it as distantly as possible. i do not believe there is any harm whatever in reading about murders; rather, if anything, good; for the thought of death operates very powerfully with the poor in the creation of brotherhood and a sense of human dignity. i do not believe there is a pennyworth of harm in the police news, as such. even divorce news, though contemptible enough, can really in most cases be left to the discretion of grown people; and how far children get hold of such things is a problem for the home and not for the nation. but there is a certain class of evils which a healthy man or woman can actually go through life without knowing anything about at all. these, i say, should be stamped and blackened out of every newspaper with the thickest black of the russian censor. such cases should either be always tried in camera or reporting them should be a punishable offence. the common weakness of nature and the sins that flesh is heir to we can leave people to find in newspapers. men can safely see in the papers what they have already seen in the streets. they may safely find in their journals what they have already found in themselves. but we do not want the imaginations of rational and decent people clouded with the horrors of some obscene insanity which has no more to do with human life than the man in bedlam who thinks he is a chicken. and, if this vile matter is admitted, let it be simply with a mention of the latin or legal name of the crime, and with no details whatever. as it is, exactly the reverse is true. papers are permitted to terrify and darken the fancy of the young with innumerable details, but not permitted to state in clean legal language what the thing is about. they are allowed to give any fact about the thing except the fact that it is a sin.

third, i would do my best to introduce everywhere the practice of signed articles. those who urge the advantages of anonymity are either people who do not realise the special peril of our time or they are people who are profiting by it. it is true, but futile, for instance, to say that there is something noble in being nameless when a whole corporate body is bent on a consistent aim: as in an army or men building a cathedral. the point of modern newspapers is that there is no such corporate body and common aim; but each man can use the authority of the paper to further his own private fads and his own private finances.