Pictures

Weary of the inaccurate photographic representation his father's countenance had received in the newspapers, the son of a U. S. Senator for a Western State sent TIME what he felt to be an adequate picture of his sire. He requested that TIME use this picture if and when it became necessary for the Senator to appear before the public eye.

Not every one is so far-sighted as this Senator's son. Nor if they were would they be by any means sure of having settled, once for all, what manner of face the public shall behold upon them. Not only do cameras, light and other physical circumstances vary. Journalistic ethics is a complex study, and editors, jealous of their "rights," guard their freedom to publish whatever picture of an individual best answers their paper's immediate purpose.

In a recent editorial, Editor and Publisher reported a decision of the Berlin Chamber Court, that a newspaper has no right to print a person's picture contrary to his will.

"The question has often been raised in this country, but no rule nas been set up. . . . The news picture is the best possible description of a person or an event in the news . . . tells the story at a glance. . . . People who are unfortunate in personal appearance often object to picture publicity, and their wishes are respected. Pictures of deformed persons, or persons shown in distressing circumstances rarely appear, except when such publication is believed to be a genuine service . . . as in the case of criminals."

Here, of course, is latitude. The case of Gaston B. Means and the Daily News (Manhattan gum-chewers' sheetlet) is in point (TIME, Mar. 24). Had Mr. Means, testifying before the Senate "Oil Scandal" probers, refused to pose for the News photographer, had he hidden his face as many do, the News editors could have performed what they "believed to be a genuine service" by captioning: ''Means cowers." As it was, he fronted the lens foursquare. They captioned: "Means scornfully facing camera."

More recently, in Manhattan, a "piebald" comedian, involved in a girl-beating scandal, smashed the camera of a Daily News photographer who had lain in wait for him at a cabaret door.

During the Democratic National Convention in Manhattan, the New York Bulletin, noisily behind Alfred E. Smith for the nomination, published a none-too-complimentary portrait of the other leading contender, captioned in boldest type: "Look at This Face!"

There was nothing libelous about this. Cameras are impersonal things, and though the negative of Mr. McAdoo's portrait might have been retouched, it did not appear that such was the case. The Bulletin was, ostensibly, merely calling attention to Mr. McAdoo's physiognomy as photographed, not cartooned.

Cartoonists pillory their victims more cruelly, and at a greater risk of libel, than the most unscrupulous of picture editors. Last November, TIME reproduced a damning pen sketch of W. E. D. Stokes, Manhattan realtor, done by Artist Marsh of the Daily News at the time of Mr. Stokes' divorce suit.

One of the most extraordinary cartoons ever published was one by Oliver Herford, in Life, representing Publisher Hearst as a terrible, glossy reptilian, crawling over the earth, nose to ground, its nine writhing arms stretched out to grasp as many State capitals.

Another was the travesty of Anthony Comstock, famed moral crusader, published in The Masses for June, 1915. A naked man, in the flabby paunchiness of inactive middle-age, suddenly exposed by the parting of curtains, shrank shamefully away to cover his condition. The title of the picture was : "The Nude Is Repulsive to This Man."