The narrative critiques the nature of journalism and the hypocrisy inherent in the writing of newspaper commentary. It begins by reflecting on the ideal of a newspaper that presents news without commentary, suggesting that such a plea could also apply to the commentators themselves. The text argues that the act of writing, particularly in journalism, is often devoid of genuine enthusiasm and is instead a performance of pretense. The author describes the plight of the journalist, who is compelled to produce content rapidly and under pressure, leading to a loss of creativity and passion. This results in a reliance on clichés and formulaic expressions, which serve as disguises for the lack of original thought. The writing style of leader articles is critiqued for its inflated language that obscures meaning, while the modern 'notes' are characterized by their predictable openings and conclusions, further emphasizing the lack of originality. The text presents a satirical view of the journalist's struggle to maintain an appearance of erudition and sprightliness, despite the constraints of their profession. It highlights the absurdity of their reliance on established phrases and references, which ultimately contribute to a culture of insincerity. The author suggests that the commentators have become so entrenched in their roles that they would struggle to survive outside of journalism, proposing a hypothetical law that would ban commentary altogether as a means of liberation. In essence, the work serves as a critique of the journalistic profession, exposing the superficiality and artificiality of commentary writing, while advocating for a return to genuine expression and thought. The author laments the state of modern journalism, portraying it as a breeding ground for hypocrisy and a barrier to authentic communication.
By Max Beerbohm · First published 1918 · Genre: Satire, Essay, Social Commentary