The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-07-10
Eren William Can't DO IL

MANY have contended that William Randolph
wi Hearst is the greatest of American journalists
I do not agree. think he falls short on his own
pOentialities because he possesses so strong sense
of modesty and because he lacks sense Of humor
AS to his sense Of modesty may offer in evidence
further paragraphs from Mr. HeaTsts suggested pro-
gram for his League of Decency We have no litera-
ture 50 far worthy of the name, he says. but such
writing appears is in large part sordid or sala-
cious."
It grieves me to hear one of the most profound
of American patriots taking this attitude. Perhaps
1t is no than a temporary period of humility
Possibly the glamour of the old world has
for the moment turned the head of the man who
has been the most dangerous patron OF American
letters If only 1 knew the address I would cable
upon the instant Cheer up, Sir. Stop AT times
many of your magazines are not half bad Stop
Yours for America First.
And this brief message might well be followed
by a letter in which I would endeavor to point out
I Mr. Hearst that the Cosmopolitan printed some
the very best of Ring Lardner and Dorothy Park
and a little possible Hemingway.
I might even be tempted to go on and endeavor
60 convince Mr. Hearst that his League of Decency
is doomed to failure and that he would do we'll to
drop the whole enterprise In his role as the highest
bidder Tor native fiction and articles it would seem
as if William Randolph Hearst ought to be able to
set and maintain certain standards. 1t is possibly
true that genius does not invariably spring forth
whenever an elastic Is snapped from around bank
roll but the sound pleasant one and for the most
part, it serves to make the writing men and women
give the public what the publisher wants.
Let's Ask a Question
DEINCT myself cosmopolitan aumnus 1 am
ID aware of the fact that Mr.. Hearst keeps the
wires from California hot with messages to his
editors instructing them please be careful to keep
all suggestions of sex and sensatonalSm from our
magazines and newspapers" And yet his best et-
forts have not availed. He himself admits as much
If MI Hearst has not been able to correct these
great abuses I wonder how anybody else has the
temerity to try. But I am not weeping. Naturally
I do not question the right of any persons to stay
away in droves from plays or books or pictures which
they do not like.
But 1 wonder if all the recruits TO the movement
for the establishment of clerical censorship really
have considered what the result of such an arrange
ment might be.
It puzzles me that some of the very editors who
have been most vociferous in fighting for the free
dom of the press are the same ones who would sell
the stage and screen and literature down the river
Let us adopt the RooSeveltian formula of asking the
individual reader think of the best American plays
which he has ever seen.
Doesn't What Price Gory?" belong in that list?
And "Rain?"
And Desire Under the Elms?" And strange In
terlude?" And a score of others? And what chance
would any of these have if the choice were left to
clerical judgment?
will so further than that. would not even be
willing to leave the question of censorship to VIII
liam Randolph Hearst himself
Copyright. 1891