The day book. [volume], September 04, 1913, Image 2

About The day book. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917

Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

                
r-:
" "V
JThls does not mean that the - ' ' b-'ys the paper, but it ners,
if we understand Mr. DeWeese, that, in all fairness, a publication should re
fuse to accept the money of an advertiser whose interest it is its policy to
oppose." After all the advertiser has no reason to grumble. If he persists
in patronizing a publication that antagonizes his interests, he is taking his
own risks and committing his own fojly.
"A prominent Western advertiser who has on more than one occasion
voiced his supreme contempt for the muckraking magazines and the yellow
nrQ wa. nnn a renent nftrioH. a cm nam ns natronizer of ouhlications no-
. toriously of this character, because his advertising manager was an ardent
believer in the policy of muckraking and didn t hesitate to say so. A five
minutes' heart-to-heart talk with his employer changed the advertising
'manager's mind. It also changed the list of publications he had been
patronizing."
The danger to a free press in a free country is made plain enough In
that editorial.
The RIGHTS of the advertisers are based upon the claim that his
"patronage is the chief source of revenue for the publication." ,
Leslie's merely turns the proposition, t'other end to when it says that
a publication "should refuse to accept the money of an advertiser whose
interest it is his policy to oppose."
Suppose a manufacturer found it profitable to employ child labor in
making the article he sells. Then any newspaper that advocated laws pre
venting the use of children in manufacturing would be opposing the "in
terest" of that manufacturer. '
If that manufacturer should happen to be violating the state factory
laws Ty employing children under age, then any newspaper that favored
enforcing the law would be opposing the selfish interest of that manufac
turer. In fact, any newspaper that tried to better the condition of the workers
as to hours, working conditions and wages would be opposing the "interest"
of the manufacturer who profits financially by working men, women and
children long hours, at low wages, under unhealthy conditions.
The argument of such "business" men as Geo. P. Bent is that if that
manufacturer advertises in a newspaper, then that .newspaper must not do
anything for humanity if it happens to interfere with the interest or profit
bf" of the advertiser.
imuw 11 may ue uiat me newspaper s circulation, is inane up largely ot
working people. Every newspaper of large circulation has most of its read
ers among the workers. Its advertising rates are based upon that circula
tion, and its advertising space has value only because of that circulation.
I say that no advertiser has any rights at all except to what he pays
for, and that is the space his ad occupies in the newspaper.
If he doesn't make money advertising in a newspaper, he is a fool busi
ness man for spending a nickel with that paper.
If he does make money out of newspaper advertising, then he is get
ting his money's worth, and is entitled to no more consideration than any
other citizen in the newspaper's riews and editorial policy.
Suppose a merchant or manufacturer were to pursue the policy laid
out for advertisers by Leslie's and refuse to patronize newspapers whose
policies were made to please readers rather than advertisers.
Then the Inter-Ocean, whose policy is always for BIG BUSINESS and
against anything in the interest of the working class, would be full of ad
vertising. But 'very few people would see the advertising, the advertiser
& -.
SSHSmm
:. .- - riw.J. , .. L-.-,