The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1939-01-19
Attacks On The Press

AILdchS OH 1uc II 1858
Washington, Jan. a.
1t would be interesting to know
what really is the frame of mind OF
these Administration spokesman who
make regular business Of denounc-
ing the press. For example, there is
the voluble and vituperative, but very
intelligent, Mr.. Ickes.
#**
His stock thesis, eXpounded the
other night, is that the press is owned
by sinister financial interests, con-
trolled by the advertisers, unfair to
the working man and prints the news
only when it pleases. Yet the follow
ing morning the newspapers printed
Mr.. Ickes' speech lambasting them
more fully than they printed Mr. Can
nett's speech defending them. In add
ton, more space was gievn Mr.. lckes
denunciation by papers opposed to the
New Deal than by some which support
it. Indeed, one of the most ardent of
the New Deal papers, which Mr.. lckes
singled out for praise, appears to have
been the only metropolitan newspaper
which printed nothing at all about the
debate.
BY few other big-city papers was
Mr.. Ickes' attack even minimized. On
the contrary, one which he assailed by
name-the Herald Tribune-not only
gave Mr.. Ickes preferred position over
Mr.. Gannett but devoted its headlines
largely to the former, almost exclud-
ing the latter. These facts seem to
make Mr.. Ickes' allegations look fool
ish and himself a little ridiculous. His
protection, of course, is that the peo-
pie as a whole so completely take it
for granted that the newspapers print
the news that they do not stop to re-
fleet that the mere printing by the
newspapers of Mr.. Ickes' savage at
tack on the newspapers constituted a
fairly convincing answer.
#**
Certainly, if what Mr.. Ickes says of
the newspapers is true, the newspa-
pers wouldn't print it. Can anyone i'm
agine the sinister interests whom Mr..
Ickes insists own the newspapers per-
hitting Mr.. Ickes to say in their sinis-
terly controlled columns that they are
sinister interests and do own the pa
pers? If they did that, they would be
less sinister than stupid. Actually, of
course, it is an ancient and well-rec-
ognized custom among a certain breed
of politicians to hammer the press. 1t
is very old stuff for politicians to deny
their indiscreet and damaging remarks
which get into print (Mr, Hopkins is
the most recent case in point) and it
is equally old stuff for politicians
placed on the defensive to howl about
the venal and licentious press.
***
But no sensible publisher objects to
that. No sound newspaper editor or
owner wants to stop the Ickes TRADES.
Only the foolish ones retort in kind.
Every informed newspaper man knows
that good newspapers thrive on that
kind of attack; that it is sure sign
their criticism is effective and their
aim true. The time for newspaper pub
fishers to worry is not when the job
holding politicians abuse and deny, but
when they don't. When that happens
it is a disturbing sign, an indication
that something or someone has slipped.
There is nothing more healthful for a
newspaper than a large, continuous
dose of political denunciation. 1t is the
surest sign of journalistic well-being.
No politician ever denounces an unin-
fluential paper or denies the words of
an Intellectual writer.
Particularly, newspapers should
welcome denunciation from men like
Mr.. Ickes, whose inability to refrain
from personalities, congenital viru-
Ience and airy disregard of fact would
react against his own case, even if he
had a good one. 1t is easy enough to
find things about newspapers which
justifies criticism. No one maintains
they are without flaw and no one con-
tends there are not bad newspapers.
But the sort of criticism practiced by
this Administration and the sort Of
charges made by the Ickeses, the Min
tons and the Blacks is so wide of the
mark as to spend itself in the air. 1t
is the kind of stuff to which news
papers have been accustomed by gen
erations of politicians who have to-
ward the press the natural hostility of
the criticized toward the critic. When
the press so behaves as to remove that