Why is the modern party political journalism so bad?  It is worse even than it intends to be.  It praises its preposterous party leaders through thick and thin; but it somehow succeeds in making them look greater fools than they are.  This clumsiness clings even to the photographs of public men, as they are snapshotted at public meetings.  A sensitive politician (if there is such a thing) would, I should think, want to murder the man who snapshots him at those moments.  For our general impression of a man’s gesture or play of feature is made up of a series of vanishing instants, at any one of which he may look worse than our general impression records.  Mr. Augustine Birrell may have made quite a sensible and amusing speech, in the course of which his audience would hardly have noticed that he resettled his necktie.  Snapshot him, and he appears as convulsively clutching his throat in the agonies of strangulation, and with his head twisted on one side as if he had been hanged.  Sir Edward Carson might make a perfectly good speech, which no one thought wearisome, but might himself be just tired enough to shift from one leg to the other.  Snapshot him, and he appears as holding one leg stiffly in the air and yawning enough to swallow the audience.  But it is in the prose narratives of the Press that we find most manifestations of this strange ineptitude; this knack of exhibiting your own favourites in an unlucky light.  It is not so much that the party journalists do not tell the truth as that they tell just enough of it to make it clear that they are telling lies.  One of their favourite blunders is an amazing sort of bathos.  They begin by telling you that some statesman said something brilliant in style or biting in wit, at which his hearers thrilled with terror or thundered with applause.  And then they tell you what it was that he said.  Silly asses!

Insane Exaggeration

Here is an example from a leading Liberal paper touching the debates on Home Rule.  I am a Home Ruler; so my sympathies would be, if anything, on the side of the Liberal paper upon that point.  I merely quote it as an example of this ridiculous way of writing, which, by insane exaggeration, actually makes its hero look smaller than he is.

This was strange language to use about the “hypocritical sham,” and Mr. Asquith, knowing that the biggest battle of his career was upon him, hit back without mercy.  “I should like first to know,” said he, with a glance at his supporters, “whether my proposals are accepted?”

That’s all.  And I really do not see why poor Mr. Asquith should be represented as having violated the Christian virtue of mercy by saying that.  I myself could compose a great many paragraphs upon the same model, each containing its stinging and perhaps unscrupulous epigram.  As, for example:—­“The Archbishop of Canterbury, realising that his choice now lay between denying God and earning the crown of martyrdom by dying in torments, spoke with a frenzy of religious passion that might have seemed fanatical under circumstances less intense.  ‘The Children’s Service,’ he said firmly, with his face to the congregation, ’will be held at half-past four this afternoon as usual.’”