No newspaper worthy of the name will knowingly print fake stories. If for no other reason than self-interest, the correspondent should hew close to the narrow line of truth, for the faker cannot hope long to escape detection and dismissal. Neither should the correspondent try to win favor by inserting in his stories “puffs” of persons to whom he feels indebted for information. The writer who seeks to use the columns of a newspaper for personal ends is unfaithful to the trust reposed in him as the newspaper’s agent. Newspapers are in the business of buying and selling news. They want the facts that are news--and the facts only.
“Remember,” the Chicago _Record-Herald_ tells its correspondents in a pamphlet of instructions, “that while news is always truth, the truth is not always news.” Essentially the same warning is given by other newspapers. While it applies partly to matters of trivial importance, it is intended chiefly to put the correspondent on his guard against stories that are forbidden by good taste or decency. When a gossipy individual approaches a correspondent and whispers that he has something “that will make good reading,” the chances are he will tell something that no reputable newspaper would print. The writer should beware of malicious gossip and unfounded rumors. Things that are merely rumored are not news. No newspaper cares to give space to libelous matter and no newspaper that is edited on right principles will intentionally print anything that will injure the reputation of an innocent person.
The _Record-Herald_ thus states some of the pitfalls that are to be avoided:
“If John Smith leaves town and Mrs. Jones precedes or follows him, thereby causing local scandalmongers to intimate that they have eloped, don’t send it; the chances are that the gossip is false, and in no way can a correspondent do more irreparable damage.
“If John Smith has been financially hard up and suddenly disappears, suffering, perhaps, severe mental strain, don’t send a dispatch that he is an absconder or an embezzler. He may be neither.
“Or if John Smith be removed from some position of trust, and his employer has seen fit to put experts at work on his books, don’t jump to the conclusion that John is a defaulter, and don’t send a dispatch that he is under suspicion. Facts, not suspicions, are news.