The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1927-12-22
FREE PUBLICITY AND NEWS
GAN EDITORIAL)

Distinguishing between real news
and "free publicity" is something that
seems to bother almost every editor
in the United States, and the editor
of The Republican is no exception. The
December 3 issue of the Publishers
Auxiliary has the following to say on
free publicity and news:
Making distinction between free
publicity and legitimate news is a
problem which every newspaper editor
is called upon at some time or an
other to solve, and since both are in
tangible and changing qualities which
defy instant recognition, positive an
alysis and permanent classification the
solution of the problem is always a
difficult one. That the free publicity
question is live topic among publish
ers is indicated by the amount of dis
cussion given to it on many press as
ISOLATION meeting programs.
The Auxiliary has wondered some
times if an amount of time has not
been given to the discussion of sub
ject which is all out of proportion to
its Importance and if, SO far as practi-
cal results are concerned, the time so
spent in a wordy belaboring of the
''free space CRATER" might not have
been spent more proftably otherwise.
For we have steadfastly believed that
the problem of how free publicity
should be disposed of is, after all, a
problem of the individual editor and
cannot be solved by a group of edi-
tors passing blanket resolutions COW
ering all forms of free publicity. We
have maintained that there is just one
test to be applied to free publicity in
deciding whether it is to appear in the
publishers newspaper or be conslgn-
ed to the editorial wastebasket. That
test is the test of news or reader in
terest value to that newspaper, and
since only the editor of the newspaper
can determine that, he, and not a
group of editors, who are unfamiliar
with his readers and their interests,
should be the one who decides whether
or not the free publicity should be
used.
We have known editors who, in the
proverbial ''leaning backward in the
effort to be upright" in dealing with
free publicity, have deprived their sub
scribers of reading matter that was
rightfully theirs. The classic interest
of this is the publisher who, during
the flu epidemic with an appalling
death rate in his community, refused
to print the instructions of local health
authorities on how to combat the
plague unless they were run as paid
advertising. We have known editors,
too, who have used free publicity in
discriminatory and without any regard
to it's timeliness or reader interest
value in their papers because it was
convenient "filler." The policy of one,
it seems to US, is as indefensible as the
policy of the other. The editor who
uses any and all such material sent
Ito him does the same thing.
The Auxiliary, no less than any
other newspaper, constantly receives
free publicity and we frankly admit
that we print a great deal of it. But
we do not print it because certain in
Hividuals, organizations or businesses
will thereby be benefited, either di-
rectly or indirectly. Neither do we de-
cline to print some of the free public
ity because somebody will profit there
from. When we print this material, it
is because we believe it has a certain
news value or reader interest. When
it, in our opinion, lacks either, it is
not printed. Holding those views on
the factors which determine what to
print or what not to print, The Auxil-
iary has never been seriously troubled
by the problem of free publicity.