in New England
, “Yer don't know nothina, and what yer du know yer don't know sartin,” is no longer applicable in full.
Nobody can now apply the first half to the daily press; but the last half is as applicable as ever.
The larger the newspaper, the greater seems the deficiency on this point.
It is not a question of wilful falsehood, which is perhaps rare, but we simply see an art which has reached a certain point, and is yet to be developed further.
I asked a very successful newspaper correspondent during the civil war why he found it necessary to describe himself as having personally witnessed two events which had happened at the same moment eight miles apart.
He answered, very frankly, that such was the general rule of his profession, since it was found that nobody cared for second-hand information, and the public demanded that everything should be reported by an eye-witness.
It is now many years since that incident, but the same rule appears yet to be maintained.
In no other way, at least, can one account for the astounding minuteness and the marvellous inaccuracy of the information given.
Any one who has occasion to look up a point of history through newspaper evidence will find that many things will forever remain absolutely