The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-05-21

But how many of the sports writ
ers in New York mentioned it? It
painted a scene which is common
place in the thoughts Of every sports
writer in this country. Not only
among the sports writer's, but even
the customers accept as fact the
rumorS that are circulated about the
business of sports journalism. Col
lier's once printed a little article
by hero of the ring about these
things. He later endeavored to re-
treat but the damage had already
been done. Indeed, if a certain
famous columnist, at that time the
sports authority for Golfers, had
not deleted from the article $50 I
am todd, the fire and birthstone
would have been excruciating.
was in Pennsylvania, covering
some fighters training camp, when
I first heard the letter mentioned
in polite company. 1t was mentioned
only because one of the luminarieS
among the sports colunlnists had
guardedly referred to it. Those of
my colleagues who discussed it were
sorrowful that it should have been
openly noticed. They considered 1t
dirty trick, indeed.
The one who openly noticed it
was Mr.. Paul Calico. Mr.. Calico
used it as an occasion to impress
upon the News readers that all the
men on their favorite home news
paper were honest to the core and
that while he lived no ball club
would ever pay their expenses. One
could see him striding up and down
his Office, beating his breast proudly
and making speeches. But he did
reveal that there were few news
papermen who could kick a hundred
dollar bill in the face; and he did
remark that managing editors were
seldom unaware of what was going
on.
why is it that the tom-toms
aren't beaten In order to dispel
some Of the illusions that the in
f1deIs create?
MIR LARDNER credits me with
III being sturdy and cynical" and
one Of his paragraphs is entitled,
Sports Writing Manhandled." Yet,
Mr.. Lardner is careful not to en-
phasize any agreement with my
text. He can claim immunity either
way. He progresses, without further
ado, to analyze few fluffy SEN
fences that I included.
ALL, however, is not milk and
n honey and Mr.. Lardner scores
up an error for the opposition (me)
in his conclusion. had limited that
Mr.. Curleys monsters were not ex-
aetly the type of idols that children
should be taught to worship. Its
been the custom" (writes Mr.. Lard
ner, meaning the newspapermen),
ito inform the public that there
are better shows eight times a day
in any geological garden" But Mr..
Lardner iterates there is no point
in quibbling with me and I re-
sponded that there is no point in
quibbling with him.
In the same paper his article
appeared in we find proof Of what
he says. On May Z, the Post de-
voted almost a quarter Of a page
to pictures and a story about the
wrestling that night. The follow
ing week the Post ran 4-column,
4-inch cut Of the participants in
that evenings bout and an accom-
panying story.
But do not begrudge Mr.. Curley
space. What want to point out is
that in addition to the Post, the
Sun printed articles, of equal
length, on both bouts, and went the
other newspapers one better. The
signed article on the second affair
was polished off with a superior dig
at those naive enough to think that
wrestling bouts are faxed.