The Free Press | Page 8

against their masters in
the matter of Chinese Labour in South Africa.
The Fabian movement, which was a drawing-room movement,
compelled the discussion in the Press of Socialism, for and against.
Although every effort was made to boycott the Socialist contention in
the Press, the Fabians were at last strong enough to compel its
discussion, and they have by now canalized the whole thing into the
direction of their "Servile State." I myself am no more than
middle-aged, but I can remember the time when popular newspapers
such as "The Star" openly printed arguments in favour of Collectivism,
and though to-day those arguments are never heard in the Press--largely
because the Fabian Society has itself abandoned Collectivism in favour
of forced labour--yet we may be certain that a Capitalist paper would
not have discussed them at all, still less have supported them, unless it
had been compelled. The newspapers simply could not ignore
Socialism at a time when Socialism still commanded a really strong
body of opinion among the wealthy.
It was the same with the Suffrage for Women, which cry a clique of
wealthy ladies got up in London. I have never myself quite understood
why these wealthy ladies wanted such an absurdity as the modern
franchise, or why they so blindly hated the Christian institution of the
Family. I suppose it was some perversion. But, anyhow, they displayed
great sincerity, enthusiasm, and devotion, suffering many things for
their cause, and acting in the only way which is at all practical in our
plutocracy--to wit, by making their fellow-rich exceedingly
uncomfortable. You may say that no one newspaper took up the cause,

but, at least, it was not boycotted. It was actively discussed.
The little flash in the pan of Chinese Labour was, I think, even more
remarkable. The Press not only had word from the twin Party Machines
(with which it was then allied for the purposes of power) to boycott the
Chinese Labour agitation rigidly, but it was manifestly to the interest of
all the Capitalist Newspaper Proprietors to boycott it, and boycott it
they did--as long as they could. But it was too much for them. They
were swept off their feet. There were great meetings in the
North-country which almost approached the dignity of popular action,
and the Press at last not only took up the question for discussion, but
apparently permitted itself a certain timid support.
My point is, then, that the idea of the Press as "an organ of public
opinion," that is, "an expression of the general thought and will," is not
only hypocritical, though it is mainly so. There is still something in the
claim. A generation ago there was more, and a couple of generations
ago there was more still.
Even to-day, if a large paper went right against the national will in the
matter of the present war it would be ruined, and papers which
supported in 1914 the Cabinet intrigue to abandon our Allies at the
beginning of the war have long since been compelled to eat their words.
For the strength of a newspaper owner lies in his power to deceive the
public and to withhold or to publish at will hidden things: his power in
this terrifies the professional politicians who hold nominal authority: in
a word, the newspaper owner controls the professional politician
because he can and does blackmail the professional politician,
especially upon his private life. But if he does not command a large
public this power to blackmail does not exist; and he can only
command a large public--that is, a large circulation--by interesting that
public and even by flattering it that it has its opinions reflected--not
created--for it.
The power of the Press is not a direct and open power. It depends upon
a trick of deception; and no trick of deception works if the trickster
passes a certain degree of cynicism.

We must, therefore, guard ourselves against the conception that the
great modern Capitalist Press is merely a channel for the propagation of
such news as may suit its proprietors, or of such opinions as they hold
or desire to see held. Such a judgment would be fanatical, and therefore
worthless.
Our interest is in the degree to which news can be suppressed or
garbled, particular discussion of interest to the common-weal
suppressed, spontaneous opinion boycotted, and artificial opinion
produced.

VIII
I say that our interest lies in the question of degree. It always does. The
philosopher said: "All things are a matter of degree; and who shall
establish degree?" But I think we are agreed--and by "we" I mean all
educated men with some knowledge of the world around us--that the
degree to which the suppression of truth, the propagation of falsehood,
the artificial creation of opinion, and the boycott of