Indeed, it would often have of judgment are so intangible This inability to flash off messages was an undoubted advantage for the old-time correspondent. To-day the journalist is spoiled by the desire for what is called "hot news.' Seldom is there time for the average correspondent of a daily newspaper to write a calm considered account of what is taking place. If he cannot do so on one day, he is not expected to refer to an incident later and discuss it at large. Newspapers generally have forgotten real news values. Information may be divided into two categories-the first, and infinitely the less important kind of information, is that at such an hour in such a place, this or that happened; the second, and infinitely the more important kind of information, cannot be pinned down to time or place: it is the sort of information which concerns a tendency, and which explains. The best best journalist, in my opinion, is the journalist who habitually is a little ahead of his fellows in observing the subtle beginnings of a change of view or a change of policy which may have the most incalculable consequences: that is the higher form of journalism, but it is also the harder, and to-day it is not sufficiently practised in the daily press. One must never make a mistake, one must never plunge until one is certain, but one must be ready to plunge a little quicker than the rest of the world. When the elements this requires the finest discrimination, the most alert mind, the rarest qualities of induction and generalisation. The very improvement of the mechanical side of journalism, the development of technique, has, in my opinion, almost ruined the only kind of journalism that really matters; for it is of no real consequence whether bandits have broken into a jeweller's shop, or whether a railway accident has occurred, or whether an actress has lost her jewels-these things may make interesting "stories," but they mean nothing to the wider world. The Paris of the newspaper man in the days of de Blowitz was collected in few haunts. At five o'clock in the evening de Blowitz entered his smart horse-drawn carriage and began his "apéritif" calls. There were three or four cafés in which could often be found many literary lights, the political leaders, and even members of the social world, between the hours of five and seven. There were fashionable restaurants where diplomatists forgathered, while private and really important dinner-parties were frequently held. There were half a dozen political salons, which, unfortunately, have almost disappeared from Paris life, though there are now efforts being made to revive them. Nor was the late visit to the Opera House to be overlooked. One did not go for the performance; one met people in the foyer-it was a their recognised rendezvous. The important part of his duties Embassies, of course, had to be visited, but it may truly be said that the collection of news was chiefly and successfully pursued in social guise. Conditions have changed. Social life is not what it was; a box at the Opéra is, from the news point of view, almost worthless, though it is advisable to make a practice of attending the "répétitions générales" at the theatres where one encounters the most interesting Parisians. Journalism has unfortunately become much less a social function : it is hard, commercialised, routinier. Newspaper men expend their energies in obtaining the official news-the same news as their rivals. They have no time to think, to talk, to form opinions, except those which are common to all. Compare the foreign messages in the various British newspapers, and one will see their similarity; they all betray the same source. I admit that French houses do not open so readily to the foreigner as do houses in Great Britain, but nevertheless opportunities do exist if the correspondent would only realise that the higher form of journalism can only be properly practised by one who moves perpetually among the men and women -who count, the men who make opinion. It may be thought that I have insisted too much upon this side-the social side-of the journalist's life, but I am convinced that it is the most to come into agreeable and It must be confessed that this social life appears to be dreadfully time-wasting, and one is apt to become impatient when one has to write a great deal, to direct an office, and be constantly ready for any emergency that may arise. For one is never off duty; one is perpetually under a severe strain. It is the tension that is killing; there is no chance of repose. At any hour one must be prepared to write an article which may have immediate results. Never did I go to a first night at the theatre without acquainting the office with the number of my seat, so that if any incident happened that had its significance I could be consulted without delay. If one accepted an invitation to dinner, one was obliged to apologise to the hostess in advance for a possible telephone call which would oblige one to leave the table. Sometimes one is lucky. For example, I remember one evening dining at the Restaurant Foyot with some distinguished American visitors. The restaurant happens to be opposite the French Senate, and is much used by the senators. Late in the evening a senator entered in a state of excitement. "Poincaré has resigned," he said as he passed me. He did not know more. I rushed to the telephone to communicate with the office. The office was still ignorant of the news, but promised to make inquiries and to ring me up in a few moments. In ten minutes came the telephone call. The immediate circumstances of the resignation had been ascertained. Thereupon, from my previous knowledge of events, I dictated over the telephone to a shorthand-writer a column relating what had led up to this unexpected action, and explaining it fully. Twenty minutes later the whole "story" had been retelephoned to the London office, and I believe my newspaper was the only English newspaper to carry any thing more than the bare announcement of the resignation. This incident may well serve to illustrate, though imperfectly, the point that there are two kinds of news. The resignation of M. Poincaréwhich was afterwards withdrawn-was a fact which any reporter could obtain; it was by far the least important part of the "story." What the public wanted to be told was the precise reason for such a step and its probable sequel. These things could only be indicated on the spur of the moment by a correspondent who had kept himself in close touch with political life, and was always ready to impart his knowledge instantly. In the Law Courts Whistler was reproached for charging many hundreds of pounds for a picture which had taken him an hour to paint. "Yes," he replied, "but it took me a lifetime to be able to paint it." The correspondent may actually do the work that shows in half an hour, but he must spend almost every minute of every day without respite in putting himself in a position to perform his ostensible work. I think the time has come to correct the impression that Lord Northcliffe, had he lived, would have taken a different view of reparations from that which is held in Great Britain to-day. When I joined the staff of the Times' the vast majority of the British people still believed in the grotesque promise that Germany would pay everything. The Times shared that belief. Now, although it has never before been made public, it is a fact that Lord Northcliffe, who was exceedingly pro-French-as I was and am myself, had come to see that a reparations settlement could not be effected if the total demands of the Allies were not reduced. When I lunched with him at his favourite resort in Fontainebleau, I had not the slightest intention of giving up the work in which I was engaged, of endeavouring to enlighten the British public about the possibilities. Nor did I suspect that Northcliffe would make to Lloyd George in Paris callany proposition whatever, for ing upon him to explain. Mr my views about reparations Lloyd George hurried back to were public, and were in com- London, and seeing that the plete opposition to those of feeling of Parliament was Northcliffe as they were known. against him, promptly repudiBut as we strolled, after lunch, ated the views set out in the in the grounds of the magnifi- interview. Three years later cent Chateau of Fontainebleau I was able to show that the by the placid waters of the terms of the interview correornamental canal, reflecting the sponded very closely with the blue sky of the first day of terms of the famous memorspring, he suddenly turned and andum which Mr Lloyd George said, "I want you to become submitted to the Peace Conthe Paris correspondent of the ference, and which Signor Nitti 'Times.' There is no bigger considered it proper in 1922 or more influential job in these to publish. days in journalism. I had at one time before the war thought of appointing myself Paris correspondent of the Times."" Naturally I declined the honour, pointing out that my views were not his views, and could not be altered. It was then that he promised me a perfectly free hand, adding that it was time to face realities. His difficulty was that when once he gave directives they were executed in totally different circumstances, and with all his authority he did not always find it pleasant radically to change his directives. This was indeed an eye-opener. It may be recalled that in 1919, when, at the Paris Peace Conference, Mr Lloyd George said certain things to me which I published in what was afterwards called the "moderation interview," it was Lord Northcliffe who whipped up the members of Parliament and was responsible for the message sent by 370 M.P.'s addressed Now this incident, which appeared to put Lord Northcliffe in fundamental opposition to me on the terms of the Peace Treaty and on the particular question of reparations, seemed to preclude any possibility of collaboration. The "Times' was clamouring for reparations on the highest scale. But when Lord Northcliffe intimated that, knowing precisely what I intended to write, he was nevertheless prepared to print my articles, I at once saw the opportunity of useful work. There were two kinds of newspapers in England: one kind was exceedingly friendly towards France, but exceedingly unreasonable about reparations; the other kind was perfectly reasonable about reparations, but was perfectly unfriendly towards France. Could there not be a third kind of newspaper that would, while adjusting its conception of reparations to economic experience, remain faithful to the taken up towards the Labour Party generally, it has shown itself deserving of commendation in its dealings with France. Had Lord Northcliffe lived, it is doubtful whether the Conservatives would have gone so far astray. as In Northcliffe's day, however, it must be confessed there was a curious prejudice against the Times.' The Northcliffe régime somehow shocked the older British sentiment, which regarded the • Times steady-going reliable newspaper, not particularly up-to-date, never sensational, never inclined to stunts, and do what he would, Lord Northcliffe could never wear down this prejudice. Nevertheless, the Entente, since the Entente Cor- Whatever attitude may be Times owes its prosperity to him; he renovated the paper; by his dynamic force he made it really alive. The present proprietors, Major Astor and Mr John Walter, the most capable manager Mr Lints Smith, and the editor, Mr Dawson, who succeeded Mr Wickham Steed, with all of whom I had always the most agreeable relations, have, while keeping the Times' alive, given it its former stability. It is now a judicious blend of the more modern newspaper virtues and the more traditional newspaper virtues. Only by according to the Government of the day-whether it be Conservative, Liberal, or Labour-a discriminating support, while preserving its independence and its critical facul |