The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-06-07

thetical question, but the answer to it Is
the answer TO problem that many good
newspaper men all over this country are
seeking
There is but one answer as A surface
answer, and that is that the undesirable
advertisements of whatever class and
kind should be refused the columns of
the paper But let US probe s-rer.
Would you escape these advertisements
If the newspapers refusing them we're
to stop publication? Certainly not
You would find them in other news
papers--in the newspaper that had taken
the place Of the departed. Would the
public. then, gain anything by the death
Of this newspaper? Certainly not. Wouldn't
the community lose a servceabIe news
paper? II certainly would Then with
no benefit on the score Of the objection
able advertisements and a distinct loss il.
the death Of a desirable newspaper. where
in would the community be benefted2
You may .rgue that there should be an
agreement between all the newspaper
owners Of a city to turn down all obiec-
tionable adv ertising. So there should be.
But such agreements are not coming or
very frequently, where rivalry is as hot as
it is Il the Offices of competing Journals.
What would be regarded as undesirable
to one newspaper might be considered &C
ceptable TO another, or TO all others.
But with the public. with you and the
others OF your community, it would be
wholly different. You would speak with
the voice Of command, and every news
paper publisher would accept yaur. view
point graciousiy, and, I am qnte sure.
gladly So It appears TO me that vc;l. the
readers Of newspapers, and the supporters
Of newspapers are the ones 10 put the
plumb-line and the measuring stick on
our newspapers and square them I'D and
true them up It is responsibility that
clearly rests on you
But how shall you initiate the work of
truing up our newspapers, Of bringing
them up to the. highest standard of
American Journalism? I viii tell Won
how in a day or two There are two or
three other ideas that I wish 10 discuss
with you first
Just one more word. How much do
you fancy the Iurid financial advertise
ments, to say nothing Of the "get-ricb-
quick schemes, cost the people of New
England every year? I don't knou-no-
body knows exactly. Ny guess would be
some hundreds Of thousands Of dollars
perhaps a million dollars, two millions
or more.
As TO the annual cost Of other n5;ec-
tiOnable advertisements to New ENGLAND
/ will not venture to guess. Thai ? is
very blythe cost in moral fiber al. in
health-cannOt be denied.
Speaking for The Journal. while in
some respects, asToncerns its advertising
II IS as cuIpabIe as other newspapers. yer
as whole it is emphaticaHy cleaner than
most Of them The first order 1 gave on
taking possession Of the property was
to throw out certain so-caIIed medical
advertisements, and other advertisements
Of character that ought never to enter
the home
The absence Of this advertising has
meant a financial loss to The Journal of
twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars a
year, or, during my ownership Of this ,
newspaper, more than two hundred thou
sand collars. And. mind you, this revenue
has gone to competing newspapers, and
has helped 10 strengthen the lines of
competition against The Journal.
Have you given US any support or COM
mendation or moral backing to inspire a
further cleaning up Of our advertising
columns? Doesn't it begin to look as if
1t is pretty much up to you to say what
your newspaper shall be like?
FRANK A. MUNSEY.