First published in 1905, this writing is in the public domain.
It was obvious that no editor could any longer print all the information offered him, and it was equally evident that the reader, whose range of vision had been surprisingly widened by the modern means of communication, had neither time nor inclination to read it all. Editors who could and would edit were required. Newspapers presenting a carefully prepared perspective of the day's history of the world were needed.
The more frequent criticisms, however, result from want of knowledge of the true mission of the organization. Many persons, unfamiliar with newspaper methods, mistake special telegrams for Associated Press service, and hold us to an undeserved responsibility. Many others, having "axes to grind," and quite willing to pay for the grinding, find it difficult to believe that not only does the association do no grinding, but by the very nature of its methods such grinding is made impossible. The man who would pay the Associated Press for " booming" his project would be throwing his money away. Any man in the service of the association, from the general manager to the humblest employee, who should attempt to "boom '' a project would be instantly discovered, disgraced, and dismissed.Unless of course the “departure” from impartial reporting matched the prejudice of all those gimlet-eyed editors. In which case, everyone in journalism knows the AP is objective, and that they themselves are objective. Just as the Sophists of ancient Greece “knew” that they were wiser than anyone who would dispute with them.The four years' struggle with the United Press was waged over this principle. Victor F. Lawson of the Chicago "Daily News," Charles W. Knapp of the St. Louis "Republic," Frederick Driscoll of the St. Paul "Pioneer Press," and those associated with them in that contest, deserve the lasting gratitude of the American people for having established, at a vast cost of time, labor, and money, a method of news-gathering and distribution free from a chance of contamination. Seven hundred newspapers, representing every conceivable view of every public question, sit in judgment upon the Associated Press despatches. A representative of each of these papers has a vote in the election of the management. Every editor is jealously watching every line of the report. It must be obvious that any serious departure from an honest and impartial service would arouse a storm of indignation which would overwhelm any administration.
It is impossible, and self-defeating, to argue with the journalist that you are objective and the journalist is not. The Philosophers of ancient Greece show the way: restrict the debate to facts and logic. Everything else is a propaganda battle, and one that you will lose to the journalist. Breaking news is the journalist’s armor against truth, and the whole truth. You cannot expect the journalist to be accurate and complete in a breaking news story - but if you limit the discussion to a comparison between the journalist’s so-called “first draft of history” and what retrospective history of the same long-ago event shows, you will find the clear pattern that the journalist’s desire to dominate the public is reflected in its consistently elevating criticism (journalism’s forte) while denigrating actual performance.
Placemark for careful reading, thank you.