might violate the principles of equalitynthat sustain the democratic form ofnour government.nJJouglas emerges as a truly paradoxicalnjurist. Intensely devoted to the ideanthat freedom of “expression” is essentialnto American society, he wound up contributingnto the conditions that diminishnrespect for political speech. Intenselyndevoted to the democratic impulse tonprotect the little man, he wound up subvertingnthe principle of equality beforenthe law that is a precondition for responsiblendemocracy. Unable to disci­npline his appetites, he rationalized, andnhis idolaters treat his impulsiveness asna virtue. Although he spoke as a defendernof freedom, he remained paradoxicallyna slave of his own passions.nSimon treats Douglas as an intellectualngiant, but true giants are never as systematicallynand stubbornly shortsightednas William Orville Douglas. The recoverynof respect for political speech,nand the restoration of equality as thendemocratic principle, can begin onlynafter acknowledging the slavish consequencesnof Douglas’s paradoxicalnpassions. •nThe Vicissitudes of NonconformismnRaymond Sokolov: Wayward Reporter:nThe Life of A. J. Liebling;nHarper & Row; New York.nOn Mencken; Edited by John Dorsey;nAlfred A. Knopf; New York.nby Edward J. WalshnAbbot Joseph Liebling and HenrynLouis Mencken were men of the samenera. Though Mencken was born 24nyears earlier than Liebling, their deathsncame but eight years apart. Their careersnin American letters met with vastly contrastingndegrees of success: Mencken,nstill called the “Sage of Baltimore,”nwas and is adulated as the pre-eminentnAmerican journalist/philosopher. Liebling,non the contrary, is all but forgotten,nnot only by the public, but also by hisnsuccessors in the trade. Though he wasnfor nearly 30 years the star columnist/nreporter of The New Yorker, he wasnnever recognized even as that by anyonenwho did not read that magazine. Menckennwas known, in his day, as a politicalncommentator, linguist, satiristnand bon vivant. Liebling was a tragicnfigure whose career reflected the darknMr. Walsh is a frequent contributor tonthese pages.nChronicles of Culturenside of literary ambition: he was prolific—butnunremembered. The big breaknin fiction always eluded him. Instead,nhe wrote newspaper criticism andnZolaesque pieces on New York’s lownlife; he died at age 59, a gasping, 250poundnglutton.nBut there is an important connectionnevident between the lives and works ofnLiebling and Mencken, just as there are,ntoday, links among the gentlemen andnladies of the press, particularly those ofnthe so-called national media, that havennothing to do with whether they are collectivelynacquainted. It is very likely thatnMencken and Liebling met at somenpoint, although a friendship is not mentionednin either Sokolov’s biography ofnLiebling or Dorsey’s anthology of essaysnon Mencken. The connection is thatnthey both witnessed journalism becomena major force in American life, and theynboth used it to put their personal valuesnon display. Both acknowledged thatnthey did so, and both happened to holdnopinions that were considered scandalousnduring their lifetimes. But neithernMencken nor Liebling realized, as theynpromoted and praised total, untrammelednfreedom of the press, that theynwere blazing the path for what was daringlyncalled “advocacy journalism” fifteennyears ago, and is today institution­nnnalized at major press outlets as “NewnJournalism.” Tom Wolfe may have inventednthe term, and he edited a book ofnVietnam-era essays that displayed thentechnique, but it can be found in hundredsnof Liebling- and Mencken piecesnof fifty years ago. And if “advocacy”nor “new” journalism means anything, itnmeans that the line between newsnwriting and editorial writing is blurrednbeyond recognition. The reporter’sninterpretation of events rather than hisndescription of them is what appears asnnews. Without much pretense at discretion,n”reporters” at the sophisticatednperiodicals can write whatever they wantnas long as they include, at a minimum,nthe phrase “informed sources suggested,”nor something similar. Years ago,nreporters were forbidden to use “itnappeared” or even “it seemed that.”nWith the spread of advocacy reporting,nthat prohibition was consigned to thenwastebasket, as obsolete as the notionnof reporters being reporters of the news.nJournalism has become what Menckenntriumphantly practiced and what Lieblingntried with all his heart to do.nBut to criticize the trend towardsninterpretative reporting as found on thenfront pages of many of today’s majornnewspapers is not to condemn interpretativenwriting. Both Mencken andnLiebling began as reporters and servedntime covering fires, strikes, murdersnand the rest of the usual news beat. Itnwas only when they had graduated toneditorial jobs, Mencken at the BaltimorenEvening Sun in 1910 and Liebling atnThe New Yorker in 1935, that theynwrote exhortatively for the public.nRaymond Sokolov has written a sympatheticnand industriously researchednbiography of Liebling, a man who wouldnnever have dreamed that he would benthe subject of a book. He has trackedndown the reason that the young Lieblingnwas fired by the New York Times—iotnslipping a false name into an obscurensports story—and chronicles sensitivelynLiebling’s 30-year love for his first wife,nAnn, who became incurably mentallynill. But Wayward Reporter is spoiledn