Papers and Politics

In a recent article, Frank R. Kent, the eminent, keen-minded Democrank correspondent of The Sun (Baltimore) recited the great advantage which the Republicans have over the Democrats in the present campaign.

He said that, of the 10,000 small-town and rural newspapers, outside of the Solid South (where there isn't any contest) 7,500 at a fair estimate are strongly Republican and only 2,500 Democratic. He said also that in the largest cities, such as Chicago and New York the Democrats are either unrepresented in the press, or they are mild and fair partisans, whereas their Republican opposites are "much more militant."

What is the truth of Mr. Kent's assertions? First, the figures which he gives for the small newspapers are unverifiable, unless someone is willing to go through the 10,000 or so papers in question and make a critical estimate of their attitude. However, it may be assumed that his estimate is approximately correct. These small-town papers must in general be placed in a category separate from the metropolitan press. Their power is wielded rather through their news than through their editorials. These papers as a whole gobble up the "news" releases of their respective parties' publicity bureaus. Because their bias is presented as "news," it has thrice the effectiveness politically of the same partisanship confined to the editorial page.

Among the papers of the large cities, this politically predigested propaganda is usually cast out. But among the less conscientious, the news from their own correspondents, and the headlines from their "headline" men are freely tinctured with partisanship. Examine the press of the cities which Mr. Kent chooses for his examples. In Chicago the omnipotent Tribune is violently Republican. The News is somewhat less so, the Post still less, The Journal of Commerce (probably the cleanest newspaper of the lot) has the natural Republican leaning of most business publications. Then there are the Hearst papers--the Herald and Examiner (morning) and American (evening). Mr. Kent classes them as anti-Davis. Indeed, the Hearst press has been giving Mr. Davis some "dirty digs," but it has proven itself about equally strong against Coolidge. As between Davis and Coolidge, Hearst may very nearly be cancelled out.

In Manhattan, Mr. Kent points out two Democratic papers--the Times and the World. He declares that in their headlines and news they are "scrupulously fair" and "rigidly nonpartisan" and "on the other hand, certain hidebound Republican organs give to many of their dispatches a heavy Coolidge flavor and lose no chance to place the Davis candidacy in a bad light." This is hyperbole. These "hidebound Republican organs" refer chiefly to Frank Munsey's Sun, Ogden Reid's Pier Herald-Tribune, and Cyrus Hermann Kotzschmar Curtis' Post. In the degree of news partisanship shown there is probably little difference between these three papers and the "rigidly nonpartisan" World. Incidentally, the most virulently partisan paper in the city, although it is new and therefore small, is the Bulletin, a rip-snorting Democrat.

If there is a paper that is "scrupulously fair" and "rigidly nonpartisan" in its news and headlines, it can be none other than The New York Times. It occupies the place to which its fairness entitles it. If there is a national newspaper in the U. S., it is the Times.

Although fair in its news, the Times is yet editorially a partisan--not a narrow partisan, to be sure, but one that is forthright and firm in its faith. Editorially, the Times is as strong a pro-Davis paper as there is in the country. The record of its pro-Davis activities does not begin with the present campaign--it began long ago.

As long ago as May 23, 1920, it carried an editorial from which the following is extracted:

"The Times is very little given to the practice of urging candidates upon the Democratic Party or upon any other party. It is independent of all parties. It hopes that both parties will nominate men of the highest character and ability, men of steadfastness and courage, of broad understanding and of constructive minds. We feel, therefore, that it does not lie outside the newspaper province and privilege to urge upon the attention of the Democrats the name of a man whose distinguished ability and standing are attested by the high honors he has already received from the party, a man who is qualified not only to pass the tests and challenges of a trying campaign, but to discharge with credit to himself and with advantage to the country the duties of the Presidency. We mean John W. Davis, at present Ambassador of the United States at London."

Three days later the Times again cried out:

"A great body of testimony regarding the 'availability' of Mr. Davis might be cited. He is not merely available, he is not merely a man whom the Democrats may take, he is the man whom they should take, he is at the present moment conspicuously the strong man of the party as Grover Cleveland was the strong man of the Democracy in 1884 and 1892."

Again, during the 1920 Democratic Convention (on July 5th) the Times voiced its support.

After 1920 the Times still remained loyal to its idol, and when he retired from London explained:

"It was partly by his faculty of such sententious utterance that Ambassador Davis won so high a place in the esteem of judicious Englishmen. His successor at London may have occasion to know the woe of the man that cometh after the King."

On Jan. 27 of this year the Times raised its voice again.

"In the opinion of a growing number of Democrats and Independents Mr. John W. Davis is eminently fit to be President and the Democratic party could find no stronger candidate."

Again in early June of this year:

"Concerning John W. Davis there is a remarkable consensus of opinion in all parts of the country that he would be an ideal candidate if only he could be nominated."

In the midst of the Democratic Convention's deadlock at the end of June, the Times again cried out in the wilderness:

"It is inevitable that in so great an emergency their [the delegates'] eyes should be looking for some one who towers above the stature of most of the candidates, and that they should be coveting for their party the strength and hope which would come to it with the nomination, at this juncture, of such a man as John W. Davis."

Finally, in its hour of triumph, when Mr. Davis had been nominated, the Times called out:

"The nomination of Mr. John W. Davis by the Democratic Convention puts a special obligation upon the growing numbers of Americans who swear by no party. They are accustomed to criticize both parties for not bringing forward leaders of a higher character. They often single out in advance the names of men of eminent merit, who, they say, ought to be nominated for the most important offices, but who probably will not be, for the very reason that they stand too much above the ordinary run of politicians to be acceptable to them. But this year the thing that was too good to be true has come to be true in the case of Mr. Davis. He was the one man among all the Democratic possibilities whom the Independents oftenest singled out as the 'ideal' candidate who ought to be selected, ,but almost certainly would not be."

So the Times and its owner, Adolph Ochs, get double credit--once for being fair in their news and a second time for having staunchly supported a man to a point at which they may support him in an even greater arena, the battlefield of a Presidential campaign.

Most of the credit goes to Mr. Ochs. He is a very modest man who keeps himself far in the background, yet he is the power which has made the Times go round. "I am no genius," he explains. "All one needs is common business sense, common editorial sense, and a common sense of responsibility." But anyone who glances at a tabloid career of the man whose greatest achievement is the building of the Times can hardly avoid raising a skeptical eyebrow and asking "No genius?"

Adolph Ochs was born in Cincinnati in 1858, the son of a Bavarian Jew. He began his newspaper career as a newsboy. He advanced to printer's devil. He served on various Kentucky and Tennessee papers as a printer's apprentice, as an assistant foreman, as a subscription solicitor, as a reporter, as a job-printer, as an assistant business manager. He went to Chattanooga to help found the Daily Dispatch. It failed and was sold to the Chattanooga Times. That failed, and Ochs, with nothing at all, bought it. At that time he was just 20. He still owns the paper, which is a prosperous property.

In 1896 (aged 38), he went to Manhattan and bought The New York Times. Twenty-five years later, he let the story of that venture become known. The Times in 1896 had a circulation of 18,900 and was losing several thousand dollars a week. In 1921, the circulation was 352,528, and its profits were estimated at about $2,000,000 a year. He secured the stock of the old company by giving in exchange one-fifth of the stock of his new N. Y. Times Co. He paid $300,000 of the paper's debts with 5% bonds. In three years the company was on a paying basis. Ochs and his relatives own 64% of the stock and return to the business the greater part of the profits made. The result is that the Times, although it has never taken up with comic strips, Sunday supplements, etc., has gone ahead as steadily-- more steadily perhaps--as any other metropolitan paper.

Of course, Mr. Ochs had his side lines. In 1901 he made an excursion into Philadelphia, bought the Times there, and later the Public Ledger, which he consolidated. In 1912 he sold this property to Cyrus Hermann Kotzschmar Curtis. As sidelines with The New York Times, he also publishes The Annalist, The Times Mid-Week Pictorial and Current History Magazine.