Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-10-29
Free Press
Threat Held
Stale DOGGY
Issue of New Deal
Versus Newspapers
Called 'Phoney'
By JAY FRANKLIN.

President Roosevelt's pointed re-
marks at Philadelphia about the
press in general and the New York
Times in particular have raised the
old question of the freedom Of the
press" after 1910.
AS a writer who owes his liveh-
hood in the main to editors who
do not agree with his point of view,
and having seen some Of the intol-
erance with which allegedly liberal
journals suppress deviations from
the owners party line" in their
columns, it seems to me that this
issue of the New Deal VS.. the press
is "phoney" fxom both sides.
In the first place, it seems doubt
full that the average New Deal ad-
ministrator at Washington under
stands much about the problems Of
the average newspaper. Due to
variety of causes, many technolog-
ical, a metropolitan newspaper in
this country is not only valuable
commercial property, but highly
vulnerable property. 1t is yulner-
able with respect to advertising
revenue, on which it must depend
for a profit. True-but this is only
half the story. 1t is also vulnerable
with respect to circulation, both
through competition and through
the Government postal subsidy
the second class mailing privilege.
1t is also vulnerable with respect to
labor, both through the composing
room and, more recently, through
the newsroom under the American
Newspaper Guild. It's expenses are
high-for newsprint. for power, for
machinery, for labor, and its income
is uncertain.
Defines "the Press"
1t is the nature of property when
threatened to become conservative
and the newspaper neurosis in
American politics is a reflection of
this fact. Some IS per cent Of the
American press-by circulation-is
supporting Mr. Willkie, while at
least so per cent of the American
people-according to the polls-is
for President Roosevelt. There is
so wide a gap between potential
reader interest and editorial policy
that it is foolish to explain 1t on
grounds of sheer anti-social dia-
blerie or obscurantist editorial bias.
1t seems to me pretty miraculous
that, under the circumstances, our
newspapers have not become openly
venal institutions.
At the same time, I must object
to the arrogance with which some
publishers of newspapers consider
themselves to be the press" From
realistic point of view, any me-
chanical or impersonal means for
the dissemination and exchange of
news and opinions on public affairs
is part of the press. The press
therefore includes newsreels, the
radio, books, pamphlets, magazines,
mimeographed news-letters and in
formation sheets. corporation pub
Lefty and Washington publicity
alike-whatever means is found
practicable to reach the public
without being confined to newsprirt
and the linotype.
Thus when Arthur Krock Of the
New York Times says that it is a
threat to the freedom of the press
because President Roosevelt has
commended the newsreels and the
radio. he is talking through his
typewriter. They are all part of the
press, and there is no reason in
technology or in the Constitution
why the New York Times and its
brethren should not ultimately be
displaced by an entirely different
mechanism for public information,
without thereby destroying the great
principle of Thomas jefferson. that
freedom of speech, of press and of
public assemblage and petition. are
the essential means by which de-
mocracy Is to be preserved in the
American Commonwealth.
Sees Political Bogey."
Accordingly, lit seems pretty clear
that any imagined threat to the
freedom of the press" is a stale
political DOGGY. The newspapers
are In bad spot, undeniably. If
they, by majority, back the losing
side again in 1910 as they did in
1885, they may lose the confidence
OF readers. But punishment for
offending against the spirit of popu-
lar sovereignty will not take the
form of "reprisals" against news
paper publishers, but rather in the
loss of advertising revenue to radio
and in lack of influence with the
public. This will hurt-and it will
probably hurt me in my career as
columnist-but it will not represent
a devilish plot by the New Dealers
to inf1ict vengeance on the lords of
the press. 1t will simply be because
that is the way things happen and
because an institution which ceases
to represent the people it serves is
doomed in the natural evolution of
social change.
In the meantime, until you can
show me liberal newspapers which
are as hospitable to conservative
commentators as are the conserva-
tive newspapers to liberal COM
mentators, shall respectfully de-
cline to get worked up over the
present system of newspaper owner
ship and operation in the United
States of America.
Relessed by Consolidated News Fea-