For this reason I have not resented much in your letters which would
otherwise call for earnest protest. I feel sure, for example, your
assertion that I and my fellow-countrymen derive our opinions of German
conduct wholly from corrupt and venal newspapers, or usually from a
single newspaper which doles out mental poison in subservience to a
single political party, was not intended to be as insulting as it really
sounded. Your emotion doubtless led you to make charges which your sense
of justice and courtesy would, under other circumstances, condemn. I
believe also that in a calmer time you would not entertain the sweeping
opinion that "the daily press has become one of the direst plagues of
humanity, an ulcer in the frame of society, whose one object it is, for
private ends (wealth, political influence, and social position), to pit
the races, nations, religions, and classes against one another." I
realise that some of our papers are a disgrace to the high calling of
journalism; I believe that some sacrifice honour for gain and that some
are subservient to special interests; but the roll of American
journalists is honoured by the presence of many names which command
respect at home and abroad because of a long-standing reputation for
honesty, fearlessness, and distinguished service in the cause of
humanity. To one such name was added at our last commencement the degree
representing one of the highest honours which Columbia University has to
bestow upon a man of lofty ideals and honourable achievement. The paper
edited by this man is among those most extensively read by myself and
hundreds of thousands of other Americans who demand to know the truth.
However low may be the moral plane of some newspapers, your
characterisation of all newspapers as mere business concerns, founded
and carried on with the purpose of enriching their owners, and
supporting certain special interests, "quite regardless of their effect,
beneficial or the reverse, upon the real public interests of their own