The Free Press

you have the sa

ere is no machinery for actually suppressing the mere statement of a doctrine clearly important to its readers-then

nion" to which the large newspaper has in the past pretended. But I am arguing for the truth that

wn time in England. Two proceeded from the small

's Suffrage. The one proceeding from the populace was the sudden, brief (and rapidly suppressed) insu

the direction of their "Servile State." I myself am no more than middle-aged, but I can remember the time when popular newspapers such as "The Star" openly printed arguments in favour of Collectivism, and though to-day those arguments are never heard in the Press-largely because the Fabian Society has itself abandoned Col

o blindly hated the Christian institution of the Family. I suppose it was some perversion. But, anyhow, they displayed great sincerity, enthusiasm, and devotion, suffering many things for their cause, and acting in the only w

agitation rigidly, but it was manifestly to the interest of all the Capitalist Newspaper Proprietors to boycott it, and boycott it they did-as long as they could. But it was too much for them. They were swept off their feet.

f the general thought and will," is not only hypocritical, though it is mainly so. There is still someth

ent war it would be ruined, and papers which supported in 1914 the Cabinet intrigue to aband

ty: in a word, the newspaper owner controls the professional politician because he can and does blackmail the professional politician, especially upon his private life. But if he does not command a large public t

epends upon a trick of deception; and no trick of deception

is merely a channel for the propagation of such news as may suit its proprietors, or of such opini

rbled, particular discussion of interest to the common-weal suppres