What Is Propaganda?

Paul L. Harrison, of the Department of Journalism, University of Kansas, wrote a letter to William Randolph Hearst, asked a question:

“How do you distinguish between legitimate publicity and propaganda?”

Mr. Hearst, in the columns of his New York American, answered:

” ‘Legitimate publicity’ is the spreading of truthful information, or facts, about any cause or condition which is of interest or importance to people generally, and not for the pecuniary or other advantage of the person spreading it.

“Propaganda is the giving out (or hiring of) opinions, arguments, or pleas to induce people generally to believe what some individual, group of individuals or organizations want them to believe, for the pecuniary or other advantage of the individual, group or organization giving out (or hiring) the propaganda.

“Ivy L. Lee, publicity man on a large scale (for the Pennsylvania Railroad, Standard Oil and other interests) took exception to Mr. Hearst’s latter definition. He wrote Mr. Hearst a letter:

“Would not a sounder definition be:

” ‘Legitimate publicity is the spreading of truthful information, or facts, about any cause or condition which is of interest or importance to people generally— provided that it is made plain who is responsible for distributing the information and who is financing its distribution, together, of course, with details as to the amount of money spent and the methods by which it is expended.’ “

Herbert Bayard Swope, one of the best reporters that ever lived, and now Executive Editor of The New York World, concurs with Mr. Lee’s view. Said he in a speech before the annual meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, in Manhattan last April:

“We recognize that propaganda may be anything or everything; that its limitation is readily set by the assumption of a personal responsibility.”

Can we call by any other name a Presidential message sent to the Congress advocating the passage of some special legislation? But, because responsibility is assumed by the author, we accept it.”

In Washington

Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of The Nation, carried on with his series* of articles descriptive of the press of America, chronicled his impression of Washington: A Capital Without a Thunderer.

Mr. Villard’s chief point is that “to get a survey of all the national news originating in Washington, one has had to buy a New York, Philadelphia or Baltimore daily” It is the Washington correspondents, not the local newspaper men, who are the journalists who have influenced the political life of the capital. “They are the ones whom the politicians read eagerly, of whom they stand in awe, especially those whose duty it is to keep the folks back home informed as to what Congressman X and Senator Y are doing.”

With Edward B. McLean, proprietor of the Washington Post and intimate friend of the late President Harding, Mr. Villard is harsh. “Mr. McLean, who is usually credited with a past, but not so often with a future, was appointed chairman of the committee which was to have conducted the Harding inaugural ball. The ball was soon dropped, ostensibly for reasons of economy, but there is widespread belief that the choice of the chairman to guide it also had much to do with the abandonment of this function. Mr. McLean, despite his great wealth, is not and never will be popular in Washington, which cannot get over its wonder that any President could be on terms of intimacy with him. . . . Just as the Cincinnati Enquirer owes nothing to Edward B. McLean for its long-established influence and reputation as one of the most remarkable news-gathering dailies of the country, so the Washington Post has gained nothing in moral character from its present owner.”

Mr. Villard sees in Washington a great opportunity for ” a weekly journal which can present interesting, well-written facts or accounts of the progress of Government.”

Reincarnation

Harper’s Weekly, long live its name, has been dead only a few years.It was one of the casualties of the War. Two generations ago the famous weekly carried the cartoons of Nast, which kindledthe flame of public wrath and eventually consumed the corrupt tinder of the Tweed Ring. The New York Times was high priest over that burnt offering to the god of politics. But Harper’s Weekly held the torch. Today a ghost of journalism has returned, announcing itself as the New Harper’s Weekly, an ” International Illustrated Journal”.

But the old vitality is lacking. An advance number was issued on Sept. 1 and regular publication will commence on Oct. 27. Its leading article was on New York, Wonder City of the World. Others were: Campaign to Reduce Auto Accidents; The Alaska Problem; The Market—Past, Present, Future; Playgrounds of the United States (by Hubert Work); Pension Office Will Speed Up; /Suggestions on Women’s Apparel. The illustrations consist of 35 photographs of New York City, photographs of two authors of articles, six photographs of National Parks (including Old Faithful Geyser, Yosemite Falls, the Grand Canyon and the giant trees of California) and three fashion plates. Its contributors include Major General A. W. Greeley, Mrs. Fiske (actress), Albert B. Cummins (Senator), Edwin Denby (Secretary of Navy) Ethelda Bleibtrey (swimmer).

Said the blurb of the new weekly: “Its views on political, social, religious, economic and moral questions will be fearlessly expressed, without favor. . . . It will, briefly, aim to present an accurate and complete picture of this age in which we live. . . . Do you enthuse ?”

How to Criticize

When President Harding died the country lost not only a Presidentbut a newspaper man. Mr. Coolidge is not a journalist, but, as a Government officer, he has his opinions as to what the press should be. He wrote a letter to A. G. Newmyer of The New Orleans Item, President of the Southern Newspaper Publishers’ Association:

“Every newspaper can be very helpful in its support of the Government . . . Fundamentally this means always making the authority of the law supreme. It means undivided allegiance to the Constitution and unhesitating obedience to legislative action made in accordance with its provisions.

“Constructive criticism is always helpful. . . . But constructive criticism does not accomplish its purpose merely by pointing out what is evil. It must not fail to direct attention, with more emphasis, to what is good.”

*In this series have been described The Kansas City Star, The New York World, the Philadelphia Public Ledger, the journals of William R. Hearst, the Minnesota Daily Star, the Jewish Forward.