demand that the treatment of such subjects shall not be suggestive or
offensive. To portray violators of the criminal or moral codes as heroes
worthy of emulation; to gratify some readers' taste for the morbid; to
satisfy other readers by exploiting sex--all are alike foreign to the
purpose of respectable journalism. No self-respecting writer will lend
the aid of his pen to such work, and no self-respecting editor will
publish it.

To deter persons from committing similar crimes and follies should be
the only purpose in writing on such topics. The thoughtful writer,
therefore, must guard against the temptation to surround wrong-doers
with the glamour of heroic or romantic adventure, and, by sentimental
treatment, to create sympathy for the undeserving culprit. Violations of
law and of the conventions of society ought to be shown to be wrong,
even when the wrong-doer is deserving of some sympathy. This need not be
done by moralizing and editorializing. A much better way is to
emphasize, as the results of wrong-doing, not only legal punishment and
social ostracism, but the pangs of a guilty conscience, and the disgrace
to the culprit and his family.

A cynical or flippant treatment of serious subjects gives many readers a
false and distorted view of life. Humor does not depend on ridicule or
satire. The fads and foibles of humanity can be good-naturedly exposed
in humorous articles that have no sting. Although many topics may very
properly be treated lightly, others demand a serious, dignified style.

The men and women whom a writer puts into his articles are not puppets,
but real persons, with feelings not unlike his own. To drag them and
their personal affairs from the privacy to which they are entitled, and
to give them undesired and needless publicity, for the sake of affording