The Press: THE PRESS: Papers and Politics

• Share

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.