From An Essay on the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion (1849) by Sir George Cornewall Lewis.
“in looking on the newspaper as one of the principal guides of public opinion, and as an authoritative source of practical convictions to a large part of the community, the most prominent characteristic which strikes the observer is, that it is anonymous—that all the writers officially connected with a newspaper are unknown to the reader, and strictly maintain their incognito. This is certainly the general character of the newspaper press in all countries. The editorial articles are always anonymous in form, and generally anonymous in fact; though, in some cases, their authorship may be disclosed in private, or may be ascertained upon inquiry.
“The anonymous character of the newspaper press is so important and distinctive a feature, and is so closely connected with the nature of its influence as an authoritative guide to opinion, that it is necessary to inquire what are the motives and causes, and what the operation of this system.
“It may be said, in general, that the author of a writing is desirous that his authorship should be known. If the composition contains nothing of which he is ashamed, there is no reason why he should not avow his own production. He probably thinks that the publicity of the fact will contribute to his reputation. There must, therefore, be some cogent reason for the universal and studious concealment of authorship practised by newspaper writers.
“This reason is to be found in the facilities which it affords for the free expression of opinion on contemporary transactions. A newspaper writer undertakes the invidious office of a public censor. He cites before his tribunal kings, potentates, statesmen, churchmen, demagogues, officers of the government, members of political bodies, and men in every variety of relation in which they play any public part, however exalted or however humble. The high are formidable by their influence and station—the low, by their numbers and powers of union. Having no powerful party or connexions to support him in undertaking a conflict, in which the superiority of strength is so much against him, it is necessary that he should, by self-concealment, avoid the retaliation which he is sure to provoke. Being unequally matched against so great a preponderance of force, he is compelled to fight in ambush in order to gain the victory. He throws down his gauntlet in the lists, and challenges all the world to the combat; but before he enters the field, he is forced to lower his vizor.
“Writers in newspapers resemble the guests at a masquerade, who, by disguising their faces, are able to comment with freedom, and without fear of consequences, upon the errors or foibles of their neighbours. They are, as it were, disembodied voices, admonishing people of their faults or omissions—like ‘the airy tongues that syllable men’s names,’ which, in times of alarm and superstition, have been heard to give warning of public danger. In this respect Junius, the magni nominis umbra, the mysterious monitor and castigator of men in high stations, who was never identified with any living person, is the prototype of the newspaper press.
“The anonymousness of newspaper writing rests on the same ground as the vote by ballot for electoral purposes—viz., the protection against intimidation or undue influence which, in either case, the secrecy affords. Both in writing upon public events, and in giving a vote at a public election, secrecy is ‘vindex tacitæ libertatis.’ Unless the writer concealed his name, he would in many cases be exposed to personal quarrels and threats, and, in still more, to personal solicitations and remonstrances, if he wrote with freedom. If, on the other hand, he avowed his authorship, he would find it necessary, or at least prudent, to suppress unpleasant truths, to spare certain individuals, to avoid giving offence to the powerful, and, in short, to make the same sacrifices to personal feeling and interest, as are made by those who discuss openly the conduct and character of their contemporaries. That this would be the case is proved by the practice, not only of editors and the regular paid contributors to newspapers, but also of most of their casual correspondents, who write under assumed names. If the descendants of every celebrated person of a former age thought it their duty to defend their ancestor’s memory, and to fasten a quarrel upon a historian who censured him without reserve, it would be necessary for historians of the past to conceal their names, not less than the contemporary chroniclers who write in newspapers. Bayle, who wrote at a time when it was dangerous for a man to discuss philosophical and religious subjects with freedom, resorted to various devices of false dates and fictitious prefaces, in order to divert suspicion and to conceal his authorship.
“As an example of the dangerous hostility which a freespoken newspaper writer may excite, the case of Junius may be cited. Sir William Draper, when attacked with severity by Junius, called upon him to drop his anonymous character, and to decide the quarrel by arms. Junius declined this challenge, saying in reply, that ‘it was by no means necessary that he should be exposed to the resentment of the worst and most powerful men in this country;’ and ‘that while Sir William Draper would fight, there were others who would assassinate.’
“Hence, a person attacked by a newspaper is in the same position as a knight in a tale of chivalry, who finds himself, through the arts of an enchanter, assailed by the blows of an invisible hand, which he feels without being able to perceive their author. Under cover of their concealment, these writers can pass everywhere unimpeded; they can act as the privileged spies of the public, without being subject to the danger of being hanged, if caught within the enemy’s lines. They have the same defence of obscurity which the goddess is described as conferring on Æneas and his companions, in order to enable them to enter the walls of Carthage with safety, and to scrutinise its inhabitants without being stopped or challenged by the guards …
“The newspaper press, so far as it is an organ of opinion, is a political and moral censorship, assumed voluntarily, and exercised by concealed agents. Its operations may be considered as those of a modern Vehmic tribunal, adapted to a civilized state of society. It works by secret instruments, and its sentences are carried into effect with almost resistless force, but by unseen and unknown hands. In a certain sense, the public stands to the newspaper press in the same relation as that in which the government stood to the informers at Venice: it opens a lion’s mouth, into which all public accusations can be thrown, without the disclosure of the complainant’s name.
“The concealment of authorship by newspaper writers exempts them from many of the feelings which disturb the judgment of rival politicians, contending in the open area of public life. For example, being withdrawn from public notice, they are free from personal vanity or rivalry, and from all love of distinction; they cannot be actuated by a desire of display, or of personal triumph—by the love of power for its sordid advantages—or by a spirit of interested faction. It is only so far as they are connected with, or set in motion by, the leaders or followers of political parties, that newspaper writers can be influenced by these motives.
“That there must be strong reasons of expediency in favour of a practice so generally adopted, so firmly maintained, and so peaceably acquiesced in, cannot be doubted. On the other hand, it is an unquestionable evil that the public mind should, with respect to the events and public characters of the day, be guided to a great extent by persons who, writing in studied concealment, are exempt from the check of personal responsibility, and can gratify private resentment, private friendship, or any other private feeling, good or bad, at the expence of the public interest, or of the reputation and peace of individuals, without the prospect of moral accountability to any human tribunal—and, even in the event of the conviction of the publisher for libel, with no fear of individual exposure.
“The concealment of authorship likewise encourages, or permits, the adoption of a censorious tone of assumed superiority, of disinterested regard for the public welfare, and of championship of the nation against the acts of government, which would perhaps not be consistent with the writer’s true position and character if he were known to his readers. In many cases, probably, the assumed is as unlike the real character of the writer, as the character of the tragedy-hero to that of the actor who represents him.
“It might be thought that, as the original articles in newspapers are all anonymous, they would pass merely for the intrinsic value of the facts and arguments which they contain, and that they would be devoid of any extrinsic and adventitious authority. Such, however, is not the fact; newspapers are not like single anonymous placards, issuing from an unascertained source. In some cases, indeed, the authority of a newspaper may even greatly exceed that of a statement or argument supported by the author’s name. A newspaper, it is to be observed, by its continuous publication at the same office, and under the same title, and by a unity of management under the same proprietary, acquires a species of individual character, similar to that of a corporation, or club, or regiment, or mercantile partnership, or other voluntary association, kept in existence by the perpetual succession and renewal of its members. It is, like them, a persona moralis; and although its writers do not appear before the public in their personal identity, and in many cases, doubtless, are unknown to one another, yet they all depend on a common centre; they are selected and remunerated by a common employer; their several movements are regulated by a common mind, and according to a uniform plan. In this manner, a newspaper can acquire a corporate character for accuracy and extent of intelligence, for correctness of statement, and even for soundness of judgment and strength of reasoning—which character is composite—the general result of its management; and it is formed from the aggregate writings of its contributors, but is distinct from that of any one of them.
“Now, by taking advantage of this corporate character, but at the same time sheltering himself under the cover of anonymous authorship, the official newspaper writer secures the protection of secrecy, while he writes, nevertheless, with a considerable weight of authority. He obtains all the adventitious strength which may be derived from the character, connexions, and influence of the newspaper, considered as amoral entity; while he escapes from all personal responsibility, and is not known by, or accountable to, any one but his own employer.
“Another important incident of the corporate character of a newspaper, and of its continuous existence, is, that it may be the organ of a certain political party or interest, and may thus come to be regarded as the authentic representative of their views. In this way, again, it may acquire an authority extrinsic to the mere anonymous effect of the arguments or opinions which it circulates.
“From the relation in which newspapers stand to the public—being dependent on their sale of their very existence—it is natural that they should seek to render their opinions acceptable to a large number of purchasers, and thus they often follow, as well as lead, public opinion. Even in these cases, however, they contribute to give it a more clearly marked form, and to turn it into a more definite course; and their authority with their readers is enhanced, rather than diminished, by a dextrous adaptation of their suggestions and censures to pre-existing opinions or sentiments.
“We see, therefore, that by its continuity of character, by becoming a party organ, and by sometimes following as well as leading public opinion, a newspaper obtains a considerable authority, independent of the force of its reasoning, and that this authority is directed by writers who, being anonymous, are exempt from all sense of personal responsibility.
“Such is the reverse of the picture we have contemplated above. Such are the principal evils incidental to the anonymous authorship of newspapers.
“The system itself, however, rests, as we have seen, on a solid basis of expediency. The public has a paramount interest in the free expression of opinion upon passing events, and in the free censure of the public acts of contemporaries; and, without anonymous writing, this freedom cannot practically exist. Besides, any attempt to compel the true writers to disclose their names would be futile. The law can only compel some responsible party to undertake the paternity of a newspaper article; but it cannot make the paternity a question of fact. It can do nothing for creating a moral and personal responsibility in the real writers. It cannot get beyond the registered editor and the publisher. By these means, the author escapes, while the newsvender suffers…
“The conclusion at which we arrive is, that however liable to abuse the anonymous authorship of newspapers may be, the practice is necessary, in order to secure the most important purpose of a newspaper, and therefore ought to be acquiesced in, even if it could be easily prevented by law, which is not the case. The proper object, therefore, to be aimed at is, to provide securities against the abuses of the system, and to obtain its advantages with as little admixture of evil as practicable—to extract all the honey, and to neutralize some of the poison.”
(pp. 343 – 352)
Notes in the Margins of the Days 