Evening star., 1951-01-21
Douglas Jibes Against
The Press Rebutted
Writer Says Senator Showed
Ignorance Of Fucts
By Frank R. Kent

In his recent appearance on television
during which he indicted the news
papers of the country for various sins
of omission and commission, Senator
Paul Douglas, the much-advertised
liberal" Democrat of Illinois. brought
up one or two interesting questions
about which a good deal can be said
on both sides. This was supposed to be
Q debate. but Senator Douglas not only
asked his questions Of the newspaper
men but answered them himself at
such length that slight chance was
given to hear the other side.
Only one proposition he advanced
seemed beyond dispute and that was
when he somewhat archly said that
II have been treated far better by the
press than deserved" Certainly, the
self-proclaimed liberal" columnists and
commentators have extended themselves
to make Senator Douglas appear a noble
fellow, high above the ordinary politi-
clan who worms his way into the Senate.
To read the eulogies of his journalistic
admirers, he even ranks higher than
those voluble heroes of the left wing
and labor bosses-Senator Hubert Hum
phreys OF Minnesota, and Senator
Wayne Morse, of Oregon. It is fair to
say that this nobility of Senator Douglas
is by no means unanimously subscribed
to by his senatorial colleagues. Actually,
there seems little in his career to justify
patronizing attitude toward the press,
nothing at all to affect the soundness of
the view of the late Samuel G. Blythe
that there Is but one way for a news
paper man to look at politician and
that Is down. AS a matter of fact, in
his criticism Of the press Senator Doug
las not only exhibited ignorance but
an inaccuracy Of which most newspaper
men would have been ashamed.
For example. the main point in his
indictment was concerned with the
unfounded charges made against Mrs.
Anna Rosenberg, now Assistant Secre-
tary Of Defense, to the effect that at one
time she had been afiliated with the
Communists. The Senator's contention
is that in cases such as this it is the
custom Of the newspapers to print in
charges in big headlines on the first
page but to hide away the denial on
the inside pages where few see it. Thus.
the truth. he said, never catches up
with the lie. He cited Mrs Rosenberg's
vase dS tyPlSdl VI UIllo 1lCWcPdPCI Bill
OF course. the facts do not bear Mr..
Douglas out either as to Mrs. Rosenberg
or any one else. On the contrary, they
refute his statements completely-espe-
cially in the case of Mrs. Rosenberg Not
only were her denials printed on the
first page as conspicuously as the
charges. but they were accompanied by
scores of editorials eulogizing and de-
Tending her. Also, statements in her
behalf by Gen. George Marshall, B. M.
Baruch, Senator Harry Byrd, Gov. James
F. Byrnes and others were displayed
prominently in nearly all metropolitan
papers. So was her final vindication
by the committee. Columnists and COM
mentators generally rushed to her de-
fense and since have made insistent
demands (Which should be metz for
perjury prosecution by the committee.
The net of all this is that Mrs Rosen-
berg emerges not only with her reputa-
ton undamaged, but considerably en-
hanced. The charges utterly disproved.
newspaper publicity served to build her
up to height she otherwise would not
have attained. The same thing can be
said Of Owen baltimore. Certainly no
one will contend that his denials were
hidden on inside pages, where they were
difficult to find.
One gathered from Senator Douglas
exposition of his Underway" theory
that what he really feels is that the
newspapers ought to print the charges
on the inside pages, if at all But, when
1t was pointed out that this would
amount to a suppression of facts, he
quickly disclaimed the idea. Noble as
the Senator may be (some of his ad-
mirers describe him as "Lincolnesque').
he sometimes makes mistakes. News
papers have plenty of faults and often
ought to be criticized. Though, Of
course. there are exceptions. as whole
they are not guilty of the crimes he al
1eces