ON THE CRYPTIC AND THE ELLIPTIC

Surely the art of reporting speeches is in a strange state of degeneration.  We should not object, perhaps, to the reporter’s making the speeches much shorter than they are; but we do object to his making all the speeches much worse than they are.  And the method which he employs is one which is dangerously unjust.  When a statesman or philosopher makes an important speech, there are several courses which the reporter might take without being unreasonable.  Perhaps the most reasonable course of all would be not to report the speech at all.  Let the world live and love, marry and give in marriage, without that particular speech, as they did (in some desperate way) in the days when there were no newspapers.  A second course would be to report a small part of it; but to get that right.  A third course, far better if you can do it, is to understand the main purpose and argument of the speech, and report that in clear and logical language of your own.  In short, the three possible methods are, first, to leave the man’s speech alone; second, to report what he says or some complete part of what he says; and third, to report what he means.  But the present way of reporting speeches (mainly created, I think, by the scrappy methods of the Daily Mail) is something utterly different from both these ways, and quite senseless and misleading.

The present method is this:  the reporter sits listening to a tide of words which he does not try to understand, and does not, generally speaking, even try to take down; he waits until something occurs in the speech which for some reason sounds funny, or memorable, or very exaggerated, or, perhaps, merely concrete; then he writes it down and waits for the next one.  If the orator says that the Premier is like a porpoise in the sea under some special circumstances, the reporter gets in the porpoise even if he leaves out the Premier.  If the orator begins by saying that Mr. Chamberlain is rather like a violoncello, the reporter does not even wait to hear why he is like a violoncello.  He has got hold of something material, and so he is quite happy.  The strong words all are put in; the chain of thought is left out.  If the orator uses the word “donkey,” down goes the word “donkey.”  If the orator uses the word “damnable,” down goes the word “damnable.”  They follow each other so abruptly in the report that it is often hard to discover the fascinating fact as to what was damnable or who was being compared with a donkey.  And the whole line of argument in which these things occurred is entirely lost.  I have before me a newspaper report of a speech by Mr. Bernard Shaw, of which one complete and separate paragraph runs like this—­

“Capital meant spare money over and above one’s needs.  Their country was not really their country at all except in patriotic songs.”