NEWS PERSONALITIES

The Armaments Conference has brought to Washington a notable assemblage of statesmen. In their wake, like a flock of gulls behind an ocean steamer, follows a motley array of attaches, unofficial representatives and newspaper correspondents. From this last group most of our impressions of the Conference must come, and on them to a great extent depends its favorable reception by the people of the countries involved. It it especially desirable, then, that their reports should be free from personal prejudice.

Unfortunately, in the reports thus far given out, this has not always been the case. The chief offender is the indefatigable Mr. H. G. Wells, who has spoken oracularly on so many subjects that he no doubt feels privileged to say what he likes in the present case. His reports from the first have been highly opinionated and often unfair; he has shown an exaggerated sympathy for Germany and Russia, with an equal antipathy toward France. The London Daily Mail, for which he was writing, has come to the conclusion that it it is both bad policy, and poor taste to publish such sentiments, and has told him plainly that his articles are non grata.

But the New York World, which is also publishing his articles, has taken a different attitude: it continues to let them appear in the news section but takes care to disown their opinions in the editorial columns. This illustrates a fundamental difference between English and American journalism. The former assumes responsibility for all that appears on its pages, while the latter takes it for granted that its readers will not take signed articles at their face value, but will discount the personal element. This policy is quite in accord with democratic standards, and approaches the ideal condition; but unfortunately it presupposes either an intelligent public, or a public which reads editorials, both of which are rare commodities. Unless these articles are plainly labeled "Private" and fenced in a special column with special type, the general reader will appropriate their opinions for his own, without realizing their lack of sound authority. There are always erratically-minded men who will misinterpret any great movement; if we take their distorted notions for the fact, the result is bound to be unfortunate.