for the epidemic and may provide for stamping it out? Reformers in some cities have declared that local newspapers have refused to give publicity to campaigns against graft and vice because the exposure of such conditions, the publishers said, would reflect on the reputation of the city and would hurt business. Others have said that newspapers have reported and upheld investigations of municipal corruption as long as those affected by such exposure were persons of little influence or importance in the community, and that as soon as more important business interests were threatened by the investigations, the attitude of the newspapers changed completely. The question to consider is, Should the business interests of the city be paramount to the welfare of all the people? The vital questions for editors to decide must be, Are newspapers in such cases doing their duty as distributors of complete and accurate reports of the news of the day? Are they not morally responsible when they fail to perform this duty?
"Coloring" the News. The so-called "coloring" or "shading" of news is in the same category as the suppression of news. It is possible to change the facts more or less completely so that a story not only is incomplete but produces a false impression on the mind of the reader. The sin is then no longer one of omission; it becomes one of commission. To belittle the campaign of the opposing political party, newspapers have misrepresented the size of the political meetings, the enthusiasm of the audiences, the arguments of the speakers, and in general, the success of the efforts to win votes. Candidates, likewise, have been assailed and misrepresented in news stories. In economic disturbances, such as strikes and lockouts, some newspapers have given their readers colored reports by "playing up" the disorder of the strikers, their threats of vio-
