Evening star., 1941-04-18
In their relationship with

papers" In their relationship with
society as Q whole. compared to the
church, the family and other means
of intercontact, he said. the press
still is in swaddling clothes"
The fact that there is so much
talk about the power Of the press"
he asserted, indicates that the press
is none too sure of this power"
This "self-consciousness" and pre-
occupation with power he saw as
implying q sense of guilt, q fear
by the press that it has not lived
up to its. obligations to the public.
The educator said that while he
did not charge advertisers directly
controlled newspapers or tried to
dictate what they would print or
leave out, he did see ''in the gen.
eral atmosphere of the paper a pre-
dominance of the business Office"
Cites Cases in Mind.
1t would hardly be denied, he con-
tended, that there was business
office influence back of the virtual
blackout of the La Toilette (Civil
Liberties) Committees finding and
the playing up Of the Dies Com
mittee," and opposition to more
stringent pure food and drug laws.
"Newspapermen," said Prof. Ode
gard, ARE like other men. They
grow timorous, more and more con-
servative, as they become rich"
He suggested that sacred cows
be put out to public view" He
saw no danger to q free press in
partisanship If 1t were open, not
masked.
The widespread publication Of
syndicated columns he saw as an
indication that editors had "abdi-
Gated" preferring to buy opinions
in this way than, to express theil
own.
The teacher urged for editors "the
same degree of freedom that teach
ers should have in their classrooms,
for editors, too, are educators"
Draws Editors Retorts.
Prof. Odegard's talk drew some
pungent retorts from editors desig-
mated as panel leaders in a forum
discussion Of "The Editorial Influ-
ence Today"
Grove Patterson, editor of the
Toledo Blade, declared the first duty
OF newspaper was to make money
TT is not free until it does" he
said.
He added that he had been in
newspaper work 80 years and he had
yet to see an advertiser walk in and
try to tell a paper to do this or not
do that.
Jonathan Daniels, editor of the
Raleigh IN. c. News and Observer,
made the point that the readers
could exert as bad an influence as
the advertisers or business interests.
Democracy Is pressure some
times more dangerous than plu-
tocracy," he said, explaining that he
meant, for example, some papers
played up small British victories and
played down Nazi successes because
this was what their readers wanted
to hear.
Subservience Denied.
Newspapers, contended Stephen C.
holland, editor of the Indianapolis
News, "are bound to be organs OF
capitalism" since this was an in
evitable outgrowth of the country's
industrial system, but he denied that
this made a paper subservient. The
fact that papers so often were on
the losing side, as most of them
were in the last presidential cam
paign, proved their independence, he
argued.
I'VE didn't print President Roose.
velt's speeches in 1892" he recalled
land we lost readers by that, but we
still think it was a good thing not
to feed them that stuff. We started
a fight on gas rates in 1905, but We
lost financial advertising, and We
didn't win it, but we kept or
fighting"
In the general discussion that fol-
lowed Prof. Odegard interposed that
despite his criticism of the Amer
lean press, 1t had no competitors, Sc
far as he knew, in the foreign press
for accuracy, lndependency anc
honesty. He wanted to see it still
more honest, independent and ac-
curate, he explained.
Nelson Poynter, editor of the St
Petersburg CFlaO Times, in an ad.
dress on Bond Issues VS.. Sex Ap-