Arizona republican., 1904-06-14
Women and Newspapers.


 In many quarters there is strong dis sent from a statement recently made by Melville E. Stone, of the Associated Press. to the effect that "yellCwness" in journalism is a response to the de- mands of feminine readers of newspa- pers.
 There is, in fact, very wide room for doubt as to the correctness of Mr Stones view. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle directs attention to the fact that the big yellow" papers which make much of scandal and crime also devote a great deal of space to subjects that range from the harmless to the wholesome. Much Of their matter may be frivolous but good portion of it is both serious and valuable. The aim is to provide something fer varying tastes and for all sorts and conditions of men and women. There are male readers of these papers who absorb every detail of every criminal trial as completely as does the presiding judge, but who cannot tell you the neIne Of the member of congress fer the district in which they live. They know the rec ord of every prize fighter down 10 the date and hour Cf each of his victories and defeats, but do not know how the president of the United States is eloct. ed. They are walking cyclcpedias of sports and scandals, but ignoramuses outside of those lines of information.
 The great majority of female read Crs pay no attention to these mutters They turn to the pages devoted to fash ions, to the home, to personal chat, to theatrical news, to signed editorials by eminent men and women of the highest repute; they assinilate knowledge of etiquette. of how to furnish cozyI eornc' Of what to feed a baby, of the latest things in fashion, of good things in morals or ethics or sociology, but they may not know whether Bathhcuse John is a vaudeville performer or a Chicago politician. Very likely great Geal of this reading is the mere foam of ve-biage, and is detrimental to in- telle"tual vigor. but i. is at least clean. If it were not, the paper printing i: would lose caste among women.
 But even if plausibiiity could be giv- en to the claim that women are respon- ! sible for objectionable features in ! newspapers, they must also be credit | ed, as The Pittsburg Dispatch points ! out, with the progress and improve ment in the press during the past half century. The Dispatch says: That l feminine patronage does not stimuiate | the scandalous features oe the press, ! but just the opposite. is one ot the leading facts of journalism. It may ! cause inuorcnt gossip and discussion or | frills and furbelows to displace ponder GUS discourses on tariff or coinage But any newspaper which sought a circula lion exclusively or mainly feminine by 1 uD a menu of scandals CT hor- TOTS would very promptly be wound up by a receiver in bankruptcy"
 This undoubtedly is true We lool, up 10 women as guardians of the hone, of morality and refinement. Of social Dality and uprightness. Why shouId We pretend to look down upon them as gers of the low and the vicious in the single particular of newspaper reading? It seems absurd, does it not? The truth is that women read yellow papers in spite of their "yellowness." :" not because of it. As rule they pick put the good and skip the bad
 This is not a defense of dirt and sen sationalism in newspapers. It is only l ccntention that where those qualities prevail they meet not a feminine de- nand but a depraved masculine taste.