propaganda and the press

8/12/2019 Propaganda and the Press

1/11

http://ann.sagepub.com/of Political and Social Science

The ANNALS of the American Academy

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/000271623517900126

1935 179: 201The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceO.W. Riegel

Propaganda and the Press

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Academy of Political and Social Science

can be found at:ScienceThe ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and SocialAdditional services and information for

http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1935Version of Record>>
http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.citationhttp://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.aapss.org/http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ann.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.aapss.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ann.sagepub.com/content/179/1/201.citationhttp://ann.sagepub.com/


2/11

201

Propaganda and the Press

By O. W. RIEGEL

I FONE asks a group of literate

Americans whether they believe in

the reliability of what they read in the

newspapers, he is very likely to be an-

swered in the negative. The state ofmind which such a test illustrates is

extremely painful to a large number of

responsible and efficient newspapermen who do not believe that theAmer-

ican press, on the whole, merits this

shocking lack of respect. They pointout, with a good deal of justification,that here and there newspapers are

doing a corking good job of reportingthe news honestly and accurately, andthat theAmerican press is a paragonof virtue compared with the corruptand muzzled press of nearly everyother country in the world. Never-

theless, whether the public attitude isbased upon evidence or upon preju-dice, whether the reasons for disfaithare authentic or captious, the markedlack of sympathy of manyAmericansfor theAmerican newspaper is an in-

teresting phenomenon to study in con-nection with mass circulations and the

institution of the free press in a mod-

ern democracy.

THE PROPAGANDA MONSTER

Among the reasons (and there are

many) for an attitude of suspiciontoward the newspapers is a growingawareness in the public of that awe-some monster, Propaganda. Whilethe effort to influence opinion by con-cealed and carefully studied means isnot a modern invention, technological

devices, professional skill, and a con-centration of mass and group effort

have greatly increased the amount ofpropaganda activity in the modernworld. &dquo;Propaganda&dquo; has become one

of the hardest-worked words in the

language; yet it is doubtful whetherthe public would have become acutelypropaganda-conscious without the aidof a growing number of students, crit-ics, and professional exposers of propa-ganda. The propaganda monster is

mainly their creation, and they havemade of him one of the most formida-

ble beasties in the modern menagerieof phobias. Indeed, there is some

danger of an epidemic of a new nerv-ous malady, propaganditis, whichmight be diagnosed as a paranoiachallucination of the citizen that thewhole world is conspiring to put some-thing over on him.TheAmerican press has grounds for

complaining that it has been victim-

ized by the assiduous ferreting forpropaganda. In the matter of itsform, the newspaper is more conven-ient to propaganda hunters for studyand criticism than most of the othermedia of communication. Speechesand whispering campaigns, conversa-tions, letters, and the multitudinousand important environmental influ-ences of family, school, church, and

community, do not generally leave thecompact and accessible record of the

newspaper file. Moreover, that hor-rendous monster, Propaganda, is rarelycomprehensible to the average man asan abstraction. He must reduce its

vague menace to something concreteand tangible, such as the mass of read-ing matter offered him in the ink and

newsprint of his daily newspaper. The

association in the popular mind be-tween the newspaper and propagandais therefore close, and it is often felt,not always with justice, that the mak-ers of newspapers, from the publisher


3/11

202

down to the cub reporter, are deeplyinvolved in the nefarious conspiracy to

poison the public mind.

ARE THE NEWSPAPERS GUILTY?

To what extent is this attitude based

upon demonstrable evidence? To

what degree is theAmerican pressguilty of lending itself to dishonestpropaganda? Bold indeed is he who

attempts to measure and define the

degree of culpability. From the stand-

point of size alone, it is doubtful

whether any amount of painstakinganalysis can succeed in making satis-

factory generalizations based upon anational press which includes some

twenty-one hundred daily newspapers,more than five hundred Sunday news-

papers, and a weekly press numberingnearly twelve thousand newspapers.The practices of these newspaperschange from month to month and from

day to day with changes in politicaland social life and with shifts in owner-ship and personnel.Moreover, the various &dquo;scientific&dquo;

attempts to measure the propagandacontent of newspapers, quantitativelyor qualitatively, are based upon stand-ards of reference which are obviouslysubjective, ephemeral, and uncertain.How does one determine whether a

specificnews

storyor

editorial is dis-honest propaganda? Is it possible topass judgment without implying theexistence of a &dquo;truth&dquo; norm which is

based upon a naive faith, especiallyrevered in America, that truth can

easily be distinguished from untruth?In the physical sciences, perhaps, onemay permit himself to believe in abody of objective fact the accuracy ofwhich has been demonstrated

in hun-dreds of corroborative experiments.But what of the data of politics, eco-nomics, and social policy? What arethe &dquo;facts&dquo; regarding the San Fran-cisco general strike, or pending social

security legislation, or the hundreds ofother issues in which the truthfulness

of &dquo;facts&dquo; is determined by point of

view? Where, outside of official rec-ords such as of births and deaths, maywe find a body of objective fact as uni-versally and as permanently applicableas the laws of gravitation and of chem-ical reaction?

The question of honesty is still moreformidable. Dishonest propagandahas been defined by some one as &dquo;the-ologies of those with whom we dis-

agree.&dquo; In spite of the impulse to be-lieve that those who disagree with usare viciously dishonest, scholars mustadmit in their moments of repose from

analysis that the compulsions andcompunctions of ethical considerationsdo not readily lend themselves to sci-entific measurement. Until the in-

vention of a lie-detector under which

newspaper pages may be examined (to

the embarrassment of reporters andeditors), the measurement of ethicsmust rest upon a basis that is highlysubjective and fallible.In citing these pitfalls which make

hazardous the path of hunters for

propaganda in newspapers, it is notcontended that newspapers have not

published a great deal of dishonest

propaganda, nor that much of this

propaganda may not be exposed, formuch of it has been. The point thatwill be argued here is that the majorityof these expos6s of newspaper propa-ganda, some of which will be specifi-cally cited later, have been based uponidealistic and imaginary systemsof newspaper behavior. There are

grounds for suspecting that the hueand cry against newspapers as propa-

ganda instruments may be based uponteleological assumptions which disre-gard the practical realities of our socialorganization and of the functions ofthe press.

Perhaps it is time to admit that what


4/11

203

we call propaganda is an inescapablefact of modern life. Is it possible, oreven desirable, for newspapers to cling

to the belief that theyare

impartialre-

positories of truth? In the light ofsocial thrusts and pressures, is it not

inevitable that the press establish its

functional validity by printing more&dquo;propaganda&dquo; instead of less? Theattitude of suspicion toward the pressmay result from attempting to applyan outworn and fictitious ideology toan institution which is merely respond-

ing to political and social influencesagainst which it could not possibly beinsulated. More basic than the hunt

for evidence of a sinister propagandamenace, is a consideration of the fac-

tors which account for propaganda andwhich establish its inevitability, andeven desirability, from the standpointof the function of the newspaper in

modern society. The following pages

will be addressed toa

consideration ofthat problem.

FREE PUBLICITY

The charges of propaganda broughtagainst newspapers generally fall un-der one of two heads: first, propagandafor particular commercial interests,and, second, propaganda for political,economic, or social policies. Propa-

gandaof the first

type, which seeksto

advance trade and industrial interests

with more or less concealment of pur-

pose, is more obvious and measurable

than the second, and it has producedan amount of hostile criticism of the

press out of proportion to theamount of social harm that has beendone. Propaganda of this type ap-pears in newspaper articles which ad-vise the

drinkingof more

milk,or

sug-gest the building of houses out of brickinstead of out of wood or stone or someother competitive construction mate-rial, or articles which celebrate the

glamour of the latest &dquo;movie&dquo; queen or

the newest streamlined automobile.

Some of the propaganda for commer-cial concerns is so transparent, in fact,

that it is doubtful whether it could becalled propaganda at all; as in the caseof motion picture &dquo;readers,&dquo; which anybut the very stupid recognize as ad-

vertising matter.Newspaper men are aware that a

considerable percentage of the matterwhich gets into newspapers comes frominterested sources. Occasionally thepropaganda for a business or industry

will beso

skillfully disguised that themen who select and edit the news ofthe day will fail, through ignorance orcarelessness, to recognize its ulterior

purpose. Recently, for example, a let-ter from anAmerican in Paris who

handles publicity for several Frenchindustries catering to the tourist trade,was printed in several New York news-

papers on the same day. It is prob-

able thatno one on

the New Yorkstaffs knew that their correspondent,who wrote on the cheapness of goodliving in Paris, was being paid to make

Americans Paris-and-de-luxe-hotel-conscious. Newspaper men cannot beexpected to remember the name, the

style, and the stock in trade of everyone of the thousands of publicity menand propagandists who lay down a

daily barrage of items of so-called&dquo;news.&dquo;The vast bulk of such propaganda

and publicity material finds its way tothe wastebasket, partly because itlacks sufficient general interest to war-rant publication, and partly becausethe newspaper recognizes in the &dquo;freepublicity&dquo; racket a threat to its rev-enue from paid advertising. Never-

theless,in terms of the total column

inches of newspaper space, a fairly highpercentage of news and editorial con-tent is frequently donated to commer-cial propaganda with the knowledge ofthe men who produce the newspaper.


5/11

204

The business office &dquo;must&dquo; is familiar

to the editorial departments of mostAmerican newspapers. Certain items

must be published in the interests ofadvertising or circulation promotion.There are few cases on record where

indignant editorial workers have re-

signed because of these mandatoryrequests from the departments which

supply the salary checks. Newspapermen will frankly defend the practice onthe grounds that the publishing of a

newspaper is a business, and that com-

mercial strength is a safeguard of thepolitical integrity of the news columns.A similar defense is made for the

commercial propaganda which appearson womans, society, and fashion pages,and in certain highly exploited news-

paper features. News columns are

readily procured for publicizing the

rapid style changes which are so essen-tial in modern mercantiling. Tilly the

Toiler is promoted to prospective news-paper clients as a stimulant to con-spicuousconsumption which no womancan resist. The newspapers will arguethat this sort of propaganda is a shot-in-the-arm for trade, and that money incirculation means greater prosperityfor the community in general as well asfor the newspaper. Increased adver-

tising revenues for newspapers are only

incidental to the social service. Thecriticism of the economics of this argu-ment is not within the province of thisarticle.

SUBSIDIZED NEWS

Commercial propaganda appears inanother type of story, created by amethod describedby one of its most dis-

tinguishedpractitionersas the &dquo;shapingof events and circumstances.&dquo;

Thismethod consists of arranging an eventor condition, or series of events or con-

ditions, of such newsworthy characterthat the newspapers are unable to ig-nore them. A recent example of this

was the much publicized nonstop flightof MissAmelia Earhart from Hawaii

to California. Before the flight, while

Miss Earhart was still enjoying thesuperb scenery of Hawaiis mountainroads and the glamorous surf of Wai-kiki, the news leaked out that the flierwas receiving $10,000 from the Pan-Pacific Press Bureau, allied with the

Bowman, Deute, Cummings, Inc., ad-vertising agency, to advance the sugarand tourist interests of Hawaii. Miss

Earhart was supposed to stimulate

tourism, as well as to suggest thatHawaii was an &dquo;integral part of theUnited States&dquo; and hence not properlysubject to tariff charges on sugar. The

untimely revelation gave the pro-moters a few bad moments, but the

flight was eventually made with asmuch fanfare of publicity as the Pan-Pacific Press Bureau could have hopedfor.

The newspaper angle of this episodehelps to explain why news columns aresometimes regarded with suspicion,and suggests a means by which news-papers might be able to protect them-selves against attacks on their integ-rity. Obviously Miss Ea.rharts flightwas news, whatever commercial inter-

ests inspired it. The facts regardingthe payment to Miss Earhart by the

Pan-Pacific Press Bureauwere

printedin Editor and Publisher, trade journalof the daily newspaper publishing busi-ness, well in advance of the flight.Yet apparently only two newspapersin the country mentioned the transac-tion at the time it became known.

After the flight, the whole business wasexposed by propaganda hunters writ-ing for The Nation and other periodi-

cals. The impressionwas

likely to becarried away that if the newspaperswere not actual accomplices in the&dquo;stunt,&dquo; they had at least shown greatgullibility in falling for it. The factthat a few newspapers subsequently


6/11

205

condemned Miss Earhart and her

backers editorially for having staged adangerous flight for publicity pur-

poses, strengthened, if anything, theconviction that the newspapers hadallowed themselves to be &dquo;used.&dquo;

The affair, which is typical of a greatmany instances of creating news byshaping events and circumstances,suggests that the alertness of the

propaganda hunters and the generalprevalence of the malady, propagan-ditis, may make it imperative that

newspapers printall the

facts regard-ing the news, especially how the storyoriginated and who supplied the infor-mation. The identification of inter-ested sources should help to assure the

newspaper reading public that the

press is vigilant in detecting commer-cial propaganda. The public has a

right to expect the newspaper to exer-cise this function. Would it cause a

revolution in Americannewspaperpractice if the Earhart story had be-

gun : &dquo;Amelia Earhart, whose nonstopflight from Honolulu to California wassubsidized by the Pan-Pacific PressBureau, landed safely at 1:31 P.M.(4:31 P.M. New York time) at Oak-land Airport&dquo;? Would it reflect anymore on the honesty of the press to

preface the story exalting the prowessof the football

playersof Siwash Col-

lege with the phrase, &dquo;From the Siwash

College Press Bureau,&dquo; than to try tomaintain the present myth that thenews columns are written by the news-papers own correspondents, all ofwhom are trained to detect and delete

propaganda with as much ease as thedaring young man of the flying trapezeis reputed to fly through the air?

COMMERCIALAND POLITICAL PROP-AGANDA COMPARED

The suggestion has already beenmade that it is doubtful whether the

commercial type of propaganda repre-

sents a serious abuse from a social

standpoint. One may be irked thatfellow citizens are disingenuously per-suaded to eat more bread and less

meat,and are frightened into refraining fromthe economy of lighting three ciga-rettes on one match, and are made tobelieve that Ginger Rogers is the great-est actress since Duse; but if propa-ganda were restricted to the field of

competitive merchandising, it mightbe considered one of the lesser afflic-

tions. Ironically, the chief danger ofcommercial

propagandais the

dangerto the press itself. A multiplicity ofincidents such as the ones cited here

helps to lessen public confidence in the

press. In order to fulfill its proper and

more important functions, the presscannot afford to impair its reputationfor integrity. And it is possible thatthe press, as in the examples citedabove, is needlessly exposing itself tounfavorable criticism. No one desires

the segregation of commercial public-ity to the paid advertising columnsmore than the newspapers.The implications of the other general

type of propaganda, that which urges,with more or less furtiveness, the po-litical, economic, and social policies of

special groups, are more numerous andserious. For the sake of brevity, thiskind of

propagandawill henceforth be

called &dquo;political,&dquo; basing the term on arecent and realistic definition of pol-itics as the science of &dquo;who gets what,when, and how.&dquo;

SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE PRESS

In theory, the press is a socially use-ful institution because of its concern

with politics as reporter and critic of

politicalconditions and

practices.The constitutional guarantees of free-dom of the press, reaffirmed by courtdecisions, have been based upon the

theory that the newspaper plays an

important part in democratic govern-


7/11

206

ment by representing the will of thepeople, serving as a check upon politi-cal power, and taking an active part in

public debate. While the entertain-ment and advertising functions of the

newspaper may also be considered so-

cially useful, they are generally as-sumed to constitute the modus vivendi

by which the newspaper is able to pur-sue its higher objectives. The peculiarprivileges which the press has tradi-tionally enjoyed have been based onthe idea that the newspaper is of serv-

ice to the public as counselor and advo-cate.From this point of view, that news-

paper is best fulfilling its social obliga-tionswhich is most alert in interpretingthe significance of events, is most so-licitous for the public welfare, andstrives with the most enthusiasm and

energy to bring into existence a state of

society which it believes to be most

advantageous to the people it serves.The prevalence of high pressure propa-ganda in both journalistic and non-journalistic forms seems to demandthat the substantial press of the coun-

try dedicate itself to its political func-tion with redoubled vigor. Politicalpropaganda assails the public throughradio, public speeches, billboards,whispering campaigns, pressure organ-

izations, andnumerous

other channels.Does a situation in which large num-bers of people are being compelled toradical political action call for a presswhose chief characteristics are impar-tiality and neutrality? It may nowseriously be asked whether, in fulfillingits duties and responsibilities, the pressis not obligated to print &dquo;propaganda.&dquo;To combat propaganda requires the

adoptionof methods which are no

lesspra.ctical and effective. The newspa-per must &dquo;educate&dquo; even at the risk of

crossing that nebulous line thatdemarks &dquo;education&dquo; from &dquo;propa-ganda.&dquo; Are the contents of the Daily

Worker education or propaganda?Are the contents of Hearsts New York

Evening Journal education or propa-

ganda ? The propaganda of Hearstand Father Coughlin is given a largeshare of the credit for the defeat of the

proposal forAmerican adherence tothe World Court. The vote mighthave been different if the substantial

segment of the press favoring theWorld Court adherence had marshaled

its propaganda as efficiently and ruth-

lessly as Hearst.

THE EDITORIAL FUNCTION

The theory that opinion may besegregated to the editorial page is not a

practical one. &dquo;Truth,&dquo; especially innews of controversial political issues, isin large measure subjective. News-papers have admitted as much in their

widespread use of the signed news

story, which acknowledges the person-

ality through whom thenews

has fil-tered. The newspaper cannot even do

an intelligent job of purveying so-called &dquo;facts&dquo; without having opinionsand taking sides. The process of newsselection alone implies a standard ofvalues regarding public events that isin essence political. Even if a recordof &dquo;objective facts&dquo; were possible, the

newspaper which sacrificed its intelli-

gence and opinions and became a min-ute book of unrelated incidents andstatistics would be able to claim no

privileges and would deserve no pres-tige except as a public utility on a parwith the telephone and gas companies.

This approach to the problem ofpropaganda renders less relevant therevelations of the propaganda hunterswho base their studies on the assump-tion

that propaganda is ipso facto evil.The analysis by Lippmann and Merzof the reports of the New York Timeson Russian news between 1917 and1920 showed that the Times had ananti-Communist bias, and placed more


8/11

207

confidence in its correspondents in

Riga and Warsaw than in Sovietsources. In spite of these revelations,

there are stilla

variety of brandsof &dquo;truth&dquo; about Soviet Russia, asthere are about Germany, Italy, andJapan.A laborious measurement ofAmeri-

can newspaper ethics recently con-ducted by Susan M. Kingsbury andHornell Hart disclosed the obviousfact that some newspapers gave rela-

tively more space to one side in a typi-

cal public controversy, and that othernewspapers gave relatively more spaceto the other side. It was also discov-

ered that there were signs of editorialdiscrimination in selecting certain

parts of theAssociated Press report for

publication.22 Why should there nothave been? Do the propaganda hunt-ers wish all newspapers to print identi-cal news and edit it in an identical

fashion?If such is

desired,a half

dozen newspapers, or even one, would

suffice for national and international

news.

It is not difficult to detect instances

of bias in the news content of a largenumber ofAmerican newspapers. Op-position to the New Deal is reflected inthe news columns of the Chicago Trib-une, the Chicago Daily News, anddozens of other

papers; hostilityto

radical and labor movements is bla-

zoned in the California press; the

policies of David Stern could not besaid to be inconspicuously presentedin the selection and display of news inthe New York Evening Post and thePhiladelphia Record; the Hearst pressis a gold mine for seekers of slanted

news stories; even the New YorkTimes, which is supposed to approxi-mate objective news standards, has its

Frederick Birchall, Arnaldo Cortesi,Clarence Streit, and HallettAbend.Newspapers which print propa-

ganda are unwilling to accept the com-placent assumption that truth will

eventually prevail. Militant pressuregroups employing skilled propagan-dists are seeking to introduce newforms of political control, some ofwhich, like Fascism and Communism,make

the destruction of liberty ofex-

pression one of their first objectives.Propaganda must be met with counter-

propaganda. To maintain its influ-ence and social usefulness, the pressmust adapt itself to modern realitiesby employing methods which propa-gandists have found effective in guid-ing public opinion. The role of leader-ship in political controversy should notbe abandoned

bythe

independentpress because of a failure to recognizeand utilize the weapons with which

modern political conflict is waged.

FREEDOM OF PROPAGANDA

This devils advocacy of bigger andbetter propaganda is based upon theassumption that there will be freedomof propaganda, by which is meant thata

great manyshades and varieties of

propaganda will be in existence simul-

taneously. Freedom for only one kindof propaganda is dictatorship. The

1Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, "A

Test of the News," New Republic, Vol. XXIII,No. 296,Aug. 4, 1990, Part II.2Susan M. Kingsbury, Hornell Hart, and as-

sociates, "Measuring the Ethics ofAmerican

Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. X,Nos. 2, 3, and 4, June, Sept., and Dec. 1933; Vol.XI, Nos. 2, 3, and 4, June, Sept., and Dec. 1934.

Other recent studies of propaganda in news-

papers include: Marcus M. Wilkerson, Public

Opinion and the Spanish-American War, Louis-iana State University Press, 1932; Joseph E.Wisan, The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in theNew York Press(1895-1898) , Columbia Uni-

versity Press, 1934; H. Schuyler Foster, Jr.,"HowAmerica Became Belligerent:A Quantita-tive Study of War News, 1914-17,"AmericanJournal of Sociology, Vol. XL, No. 4, Jan. 1935;Reuel R. Barlow, "Research Man Says HeavyVolume of New Deal News Mostly Unbiased,"Editor & Publisher, Feb. 23, 1935.


9/11

208

disappearance of democracy in West-

ern Europe and elsewhere has been

accompanied by the elimination of

every kind of propaganda but that ofthe party in power. A monopoly in

propaganda prepares the way for Fas-

cism, and maintains Fascism after it is

once established.

The real and fundamental propa-

ganda menace in theAmerican presstoday lies in the danger that the rangeof propagandas will narrow, and thatthe standard commercial press will

come to represent only a very smallnumber of the many political philoso-phies which press for articulation.There is danger that the press will loseits versatility and cease to function asa public forum for widely divergentpolitical theories.The key to the menace which

threatens the American newspaper

may be found in the definition of pol-

itics already quoted. The commercialnewspaper has a very important stakein the question of who gets what,when, and how. The newspaper is a

private business enterprise. Newspa-per establishments represent great in-

vestments of capital, many of whichexceed one million dollars. It is inevi-

table, therefore, that the newspapershould sympathize with those political

doctrines which will assure it the great-est freedom in an economic sense, or

freedom to earn profits without askingfavors of political rulers or standing incontinuous dread of political move-ments that might jeopardize invest-ments or profits. Newspapers are,therefore, by their very nature, politi-cal, and subject to political bias, whichis to say that their political sympathiesare influenced

bythe desire for eco-

nomic self-preservation.

THE NEWSPAPERS HARASSED

While there is nothing new in this

paradox between the public service

functions of journalism and its identifi-cation with the desires and aspirationsof capitalism, the course of recent

events has sharpened what might betermed the newspapers institutionalself-consciousness. A variety of at-tacks have aroused the apprehensionof publishers and caused them to movein the direction of consolidating theirforces. The economic paternalism ofthe New Deal seems to have kinshipwith the political influences which havereduced the press, along with other in-

dustries, to economic subservience tothe state in Western Europe. After a

good deal of bickering with theAdmin-

istration, the daily newspaper pub-lishing industry was able to obtain a

relatively innocuous code, which in-dividual newspapers, unlike units in

other coded industries, did not neces-

sarily have to accept.Although a paragraph reaffirming

the constitutional right of freedom ofthe press was forced into the code uponnewspaper insistence, it is a seriousquestion whether the argument of the

newspapers public service functionwill remain a secure bulwark againstencroachments upon the newspapersfreedom of action. Huey Long hasresurrected a device introduced by thegood QueenAnne to coerce and regu-

late the press, and is attempting to im-pose an advertising tax upon the con-servative daily newspapers of his state.

A militant organization of editorialworkers, the American NewspaperGuild, is exerting pressure on the news-

papers from the inside, and, incident-ally, is sharpening the class conscious-ness of publishers and managers on theone hand, and of editorial workers onthe other. The Federal

Governmentis showing a disposition to regulate thecontents of advertising columns, hoursand wages of labor, and the employ-ment of carrier boys. Radical po-litical parties are denouncing the


10/11

209

&dquo;capitalistic press&dquo; and promising re-

taliatory or repressive measures if theycome into power. To add to the dis-

comfort of

publishers, radio, alreadyunder a licensing system, and a poten-tial propaganda instrument for a Fas-cistically inclined Government, is lay-ing a fire under the daily newspaperpublishing business and threatens to

usurp some of the news and publicservice functions of the press.These developments have tended to

clarify the basic conflicts between the

pressand other interests. The defense

tactics of publishers, which include

increasing activity of theAmericanNewspaper PublishersAssociation andvarious regional publishers associa-tions, with the maintenance of a pow-erful lobby in Washington, seem toindicate a keener awareness of the con-

ditions of economic and political lifewhich will be most salutary to the in-terests of the

press.

It is

possiblethat

the future will see an even greater crys-tallization of the class interests of the

publisher group, with greater unity ofaction.

PRESS MONOPOLY

Not the least disturbing factor in thesituation is the fact that concentration

and consolidations have greatly de-creased the number of individuallyowned newspapers. In 1933, of 1,305cities in the United States under

100,000 population, only 163 had twoor three dailies published by independ-ent companies; and in 1,142 of thecities, or 87 per cent of the total, one

paper or one company had a monop-

oly.3 In the weekly field, the &dquo;one-

paper places&dquo; increased from 66.1 percent of the total number of places inwhich papers were published in 1900 to86.5 per cent of the total in 1930.4

4 A

rapid check of the 1935 edition of theEditor and Publisher Year Book shows

that 63 newspaper chains in this coun-

try publish341

newspapers.5The implications of this decrease inthe number of newspaper propagandachannels are realized by many consci-entious newspaper publishers. It is

apparent that the publisher in a &dquo;one-

paper place&dquo; has the opportunity todistort or suppress news without fear

of dissenting opinions or counter-

propaganda from opposition organs.

Many publishersin

one-newspapercities are imbued with a high sense of

public responsibility, and try to pleaseall political factions by the impartial-ity of their news coverage. But is

impartiality enough? Does not the

responsibility of the press imply a more

aggressive concern for public a.ffairsthan is revealed in the equitable allo-cation of column inches to various

politicalfactions?

There is danger in the tendency ofeven the most responsible newspapersto defend the status quo and pullpunches. In a period of political fer-

ment, this kind of political ossification

may reveal to the public the innate

sympathy of the commercial newspa-per for the ultra-conservative forces

which are even now flirting with theidea of Fascism. Moreover, while

conservative, impartial publishingmay command respect on ethical

grounds, it may not be the kind of pub-lishing which safeguards a free pressand convinces the public of the news-

papers social usefulness. If publish-ers choose a passive role and devotethemselves to the preservation of theirbusiness interests instead of throwingthemselves into the political arena,they may find their liberties and pre-

3 Willard Grosvenor Bleyer, "Freedom of thePress and the New Deal," Journalism Quarterly,Vol. XI, No. 1, p. 29, March 1934.4Malcolm M. Willey and William Weinfield,

"The Country Weekly and the Emergence ofOne-Newspaper Places,

"

Journalism Quarterly,Vol. XI, No. 3, p. 250, Sept. 1934.5Editor and Publisher YearBook,1935, p. 119.


11/11

210

rogatives slipping away while the pub-lic looks on with indifference.

ACTIVE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The newspaper behavior described

in the preceding paragraph may betermed passive propaganda, or propa-ganda by understatement and omis-sion. There is also an active propa-

ganda abroad in the land, which

aggressively advocates a political sys-tem which is favorable to the success

of newspaper properties. During Up-

ton Sinclairs recent campaign in Cali-fornia, for instance, the unity of

political interest among all commercial

newspapers of the State appearedwith startling clarity. The California

Newspaper Publishers Association,one of the most highly organized and

politically active associations of news-

paper proprietors in the country,openly engaged in the distribution of

anti-Sinclair propaganda. The unitedaction of California newspapers is alsocredited with the breaking of the SanFrancisco general strike.From a pragmatic point of view, the

united action of the California pub-lishers against Sinclair was justified,for they succeeded in stopping a move-ment which might have seriously in-

jured the free press as it now exists in

California. Yet in this instance, as ininstances elsewhere in the country,there is grave danger in too great a

unanimity in publishers groups. If

this is a portent of the future, it meansthat newspapers will no longer assurefreedom of propaganda, upon which

our democratic processes depend. Ifnewspapers are compelled by politicalcircumstances to become more aggres-sive propagandists in defense of a fa-vorable system, as Hearst and ColonelRobert R. ll~TcCormick and the Cali-

fornia publishers seem to think that

they are, their future is uncertain.Should their views and their propa-

ganda prevail, Fascism would not bean

improbable prospect. Should theyfail, it is conceivable that they mightexpect retaliation from those politicalgroups whose aspirations they had soaggressively opposed.These observations have proceeded

from present realities to speculationsregarding the unpredictable future.Yet, with the press of two thirds of theworld serving a dictatorship of propa-

ganda, it may be well to look for signsto chart theAmerican drift. Analo-gies may be drawn between recent de-velopments in the United States andthe course of events in nations in whicha dictatorship of propaganda has de-stroyed the principle of freedom ofpropaganda. If our democratic insti-tutions, including the press, are to be

preserved, there must be many voices,

and they must speak with vigor,even though their words invoke theimage of thatawesome monster, Propa-ganda.

O. W. Riegel is director of journalism at Washingtonand Lee University, Lexington, Virginia. He hasworked for newspapers in Wisconsin and Pennsylvaniaand for the Chicago Tribune in Paris, France, and wasformerly a member of the faculty of Dartmouth College.He is a member

ofthe

Councilon

Research in Journal-ism and of the Legislative Committee of the VirginiaPressAssociation. Publications include "AnAnaly-sis of Some Virginia Daily Newspapers"(1932) and"Mobilizing for Chaos, The Story of the New Propa-ganda"(1934).

propaganda and the press

Documents