Reinventing itself regularly, the New Review expounded on anonymity and “new journalism.”

1. Coleridge, [John Duke, 1st Baron]. “Matthew Arnold.” 1 (1889): 111–24, 217–32.

Rated some of Arnold's columns on the American press “absurd and contemptible” but not unusual in journalism. The French regularly blasted the brutality of British newspapers.

2. Bigelow, Poultney. “The German Emperor.” 1 (1889): 243–57.

Personified Wilhelm II as a man with “little patience” for his supposed enemies in journalism. For example, the “Deutsche Rundschau, the leading literary review, was seized by police because it published a section of the late Emperor's diary.”

3. O'Connor, T. P. “The New Journalism.” 1 (1889): 423–34.

Configured New Journalism as “more personal in tone.” Reporting the “appearance, the habits, the clothes, or the home and social life” of an individual had previously been “an impertinence and almost…an indecency.” “Personal journalism” in 1889 was “healthy…rational” because it gave to history a picture of a whole person, but it should be selective, which was not a trait of the American press. Gossip should never extend to “slander, scandal… personal attack.” Still, it was better to be outspoken because “the public suffer a great deal more from the cowardice than from the audacity of journalism, from the suppression than from the publication of awkward facts.” Newspapers should not hesitate to expose fraud, as in advertisements, because editors were timid or needed money.