of unfairness, but they argue that partisanship, and especially
political partisanship, would be impossible in view of the multitudinous
shades of political opinion represented by their constituents. They can
also adduce with justice the fact that in nearly every campaign more
than one political manager has accused them of favoritism, only to
retract when the heat of the campaign was over. The charge of industrial
and social partisanship they meet with a point-blank denial. It is
impossible in the space of this paper to sift the evidence pro and con.
Pending action by the courts the only safe thing to do is to look at the
question in terms of tendencies rather than of facts.
The Associated Press, it has been shown, tends to be a monopoly. Does it
tend to be a one-sided monopoly? The writer believes that it does. He
believes that it may fairly be said that the Associated Press as a
corporation is inclined to see things through conservative spectacles,
and that its correspondents, despite the very high average of their
fairness, tend to do the same thing. It could hardly be otherwise,
although it is possible that there is nothing deliberate in the
tendency. Nearly all the subscribers to the Associated Press are the
most respectable and successful newspaper publishers in their
neighborhoods. They belong to that part of the community which has a
stake in the settled order of things; their managers are business men
among business men; they have relations with the local magnates of
finance and commerce: naturally, whatever their political views may be
(and the majority of the powerful organs of the country are
conservative), their aggregate influence tends to be on the side of
conservatism.
The tendency, too, is enhanced by the articles under which the
Associated Press is incorporated. There is special provision against
fault-finding on the part of members. The corporation is given the right
to expel a member “for any conduct on his part or the part of any one in
his employ or connected with his newspaper, which in its absolute
discretion it shall deem of such a character as to be prejudicial to the
interest and welfare of the corporation and its members, or to justify
such expulsion. The action of the members of the corporation in such
regard shall be final, and there shall be no right of appeal or review
of such action.” The Associated Press rightly prides itself upon the
standing of its correspondents. The majority of them are drawn from the
ranks of the matter-of-fact respectable. In the nature of their calling,
they are not likely to be economists or theoretical politicians. In the
case of a strike, for instance, their instinct might well be to go to
the employer or the employer’s lieutenant for news rather than to the
strike-leader.
Whether the Associated Press is a monopoly within the meaning of the
anti-trust law, whether it actually colors news as the socialists aver,
must be left to the courts to decide. The point to be noticed here is
that it might color news if it wanted to, and that it does exercise
certain monopolistic functions. That in itself is a dangerous state of
affairs: but it seems to be one that might be rectified. The Illinois
Supreme Court has pointed the way. The news-agency is essentially
monopolistic. It has much in common with the ordinary public-utility
monopoly. It should therefore be treated like a public-utility
corporation. It should be subject to government regulation and
supervision, and its service should be open to all customers. Were this
done, the Associated Press would be altered but not destroyed. Its
useful features would surely remain and its drawbacks as surely be
lessened. The right of protest would be entirely swept away; membership
would be unlimited; the threat of expulsion for fault-finding would be
automatically removed from above the heads of members; all newspapers of
all shades would be free to apply the corrective of criticism; and if
its news were none the less unfair, some arrangement could presumably be
made for government restraint.
The Press Association of England is an unlimited coöperative concern.
Any newspaper can subscribe to it, and new subscribers are welcome.
Especially in the provincial field, it is as powerful a factor in
British journalism as the Associated Press is in the journalism of the
United States, yet its very openness has saved it from the taint of
partiality. To organize the Associated Press on the same lines would, of
course, entail hardship to its present constituents. They would be
exposed to fierce local competition. The value of their franchises would
dwindle. Such rival agencies as exist might be ruined, for they could
hardly compete with the Associated Press in the open market. But it is
difficult to see how American journalism would suffer from a regulated
monopoly of that kind; and the public would certainly be benefited, for
it would continue to enjoy the excellent service of the Associated
Press, with its invaluable foreign telegrams and its comprehensive
domestic news; it would be safeguarded to no small extent from the
danger of local or national news-monopolies and from insidiously tainted
news.
Such a reform, if reform there has to be, would, in a word, be
constructive. The alternatives to it, as the writer understands the
situation, would be destructive and empirical. The organization of the
Associated Press would either be cut to pieces or destroyed. There would
thus be a chaos of ineffective competition among either coöperative or
commercial press agencies. Equal competition among a number of
coöperative associations would, for reasons already explained, mean
comparatively ineffective and weak services. Competition among
commercial agencies would have even less to recommend it. The latter
must by their nature be more susceptible to special influences than the
coöperative agency. They are controlled by a few business men, not by
their customers. Competing commercial agencies would almost inevitably
come to represent competing influences in public life; while, if worse
came to worst, a commercialized “news trust” would clearly be more
dangerous than a coöperative news trust. The great reactionary
influences of business would have freer play upon its directors than
they can have upon the directors of an organization like the Associated
Press. If it be decided that even the Associated Press is not immune
from such influences, the public should, the writer believes, think
twice before demanding its destruction, instead of its alteration to
conform with the modern conception of the public-service corporation.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: A REPLY
BY MELVILLE E. STONE
[_A letter to the Editor of the Atlantic Monthly, dated August 1,
1914._]
An article under the title, “The Problem of The Associated Press,”
appeared in the July issue of the Atlantic. It was anonymous and may be
without claim to regard. It is marred by several mistakes of fact. Some
of them are inexcusable: the truth might so easily have been learned.
Nevertheless it is desirable that everybody should know all about the
Associated Press, whether it is an unlawful and dangerous monopoly, or
whether it is in the business of circulating “tainted news.” Its
telegrams are published in full or in abbreviated form, in nearly 900
daily newspapers having an aggregate circulation of many millions of
copies. Upon the accuracy of these news dispatches, one half of the
people of the United States depend for the conduct of their various
enterprises, as well as for the facts upon which to base their opinions
of the activities of the world. With a self-governing nation, it is all
important that such an agency as the Associated Press furnish as nearly
as may be the truth. To mislead is an act of treason.
The writer’s history is at fault. For instance, the former Associated
Press never bought a controlling share of the old-time United Press, as
he alleges. Nor did the _Chicago Inter-Ocean_ go to law because it was
refused admission. It was a charter member; it admittedly violated a
by-law, discipline was administered and against this discipline the law
was invoked, and a decision adverse to the then existing Associated
Press resulted. The assertion that a “franchise to a newspaper in New
York or Chicago is worth from $50,000 to $200,000,” will amuse thousands
of people who know that five morning Associated Press newspapers of
Chicago, the _Chronicle_, the _Record_, the _Times_, the _Freie Presse_,
and the _Inter-Ocean_, have ceased publication in the somewhat recent
past, and their owners have not received a penny for their so-called
“franchises.” The _Boston Traveler_ and _Evening Journal_ were absorbed
and their memberships thrown away. The _Christian Science Monitor_
voluntarily gave up its membership and took another service which it
preferred. The _Hartford Post_, _Bridgeport Post_, _New Haven Union_,
and _Schenectady Union_ did the same. Cases where Associated Press
papers have ceased publication have not been infrequent. Witness the
_Worcester Spy_, _St. Paul Globe_, _Minneapolis Times_, _Denver
Republican_, _San Francisco Call_, _New Orleans Picayune_, _Indianapolis
Sentinel_, and _Philadelphia Times_, as well as many others.
The statement that the Press Association of England is an unlimited
coöperative organization betrays incomplete information. Instead, it is
a share company with an issued capital of £49,440 sterling. On this
capital, in 1913, it made £3,708. 9. 10, or nearly eight per cent. And
it had in its treasury at the end of that year a surplus of £23,281. 19.
6, or a sum nearly equal to fifty per cent. of its capitalization. It
sells news to newspapers, clubs, hotels, and newsrooms. It is not, as is
the Associated Press, a clearing-house for the exchange of news. It
gathers all its information by its own employees and sells it outright.
Finally, it does not serve all applicants, but declines, as it always
has, to furnish its news to the London papers.
But there is a more important matter. It is said that the business of
collecting and distributing news is essentially monopolistic. But how
can this be? The field is an open one. A single reporter may enter it,
and so may an association of reporters. The business in any case may be
confined to the news of a city or it may be extended to include a state,
a nation, or the world. The material facilities for the transmission of
news, so far as they are of a public or quasi-public nature, the mail or
the telegraph, are open to the use of all on the same terms. The
subject-matter of news, events of general interest, are not property and
cannot be appropriated. The element of property exists only in the story
of the event which the reporter makes and the diligence which he uses to
bring it to the place of publication. This element of property is simply
the right of the reporter to the fruit of his own labor.
The “Recessional” was a report of the Queen’s Jubilee. It was made by
Rudyard Kipling and was his property for that reason, to be disposed of
by him as he thought proper. He might have copyrighted it and reserved
to himself the exclusive right of publication during the period of the
copyright. He chose rather to use his common-law right of first
publication and he did this by selling it to the _London Times_. He was
not under obligation, moral or legal, to sell it at the same time to any
other publisher.
Every other reporter stands upon the same footing and, as the author of
his story, is, by every principle of law and equity, entitled to a
monopoly of his manuscript until he voluntarily assigns it or surrenders
it to the public. He does not monopolize the news. He cannot do that,
for real news is as woman’s wit, of which Rosalind said, “Make the doors
upon [it] and it will out at the casement; shut that and ’twill out at
the keyhole; stop that, ’twill fly with the smoke out at the chimney.”
The reporter as a mere laborer, engaged in personal service, is simply
free from compulsion to give or sell his labor to one seeking it. Such
is the state of the law to-day.
And the English courts go further and uniformly hold that news telegrams
may not be pirated, even after publication. In a dozen British colonies
statutory protection of such despatches is given for varying periods. In
this country there have been a number of decisions looking to the same
end. The output of the Associated Press is not the news; it is a story
of the news, written by reporters employed to serve the membership. The
organization issues no newspaper; it prints nothing. As a reporter, it
brings its copy to the editor, who is free to print it, abbreviate it,
or throw it away. And to this reporter’s work, the reporter and the
members employing him have, by law and morals, undeniably an exclusive
right.
The next question involves the integrity of the Associated Press
service. The cases of alleged bias he cites are unfortunate. Any claim
that the doings of the Progressives in 1912 were “blanketed” by the
Associated Press is certainly unwarranted. Our records show that the
organization reported more than three times as many words concerning the
activities of the Progressives as it did concerning those of all their
opponents combined. There were reasons for this. It was a new party in
the field, and naturally awakened unusual interest. But also, it should
be said that Colonel Roosevelt has expert knowledge of newspaper
methods. He understands the value of preparing his speeches in advance
and furnishing them in time to enable the Associated Press to send them
to its members by mail. They are put in type in the newspaper offices
leisurely and the proofs are carefully read. When one of his speeches is
delivered, a word or two by telegraph “releases” it, and a full and
accurate publication of his views results. While he was President he
often gave us his messages a month in advance; they were mailed to
Europe and to the Far East, and appeared in the papers abroad the
morning after their delivery to Congress. Before he went to Africa, the
speeches he delivered a year later at Oxford and in Paris were prepared,
put in type, proof-read, and laid away for use when required. This is
not an unusual or an unwise practice. It assures a speaker wide
publicity and saves him the annoyance of faulty reporting. Neither Mr.
Wilson nor Mr. Taft was able to do this, although frequently urged to do
so. They spoke extemporaneously, often late in the evening, and under
conditions which made it physically impossible to make a satisfactory
report, or to transmit it by wire broadcast over the country.
As to the West Virginia coal strike: a magazine charged that the
Associated Press had suppressed the facts and that as a consequence no
one knew there had been trouble. The authors were indicted for libel.
One witness only has yet been heard. He was called by the defense, and
in the taking of his deposition it was disclosed that at the date of the
publication over 93,000 words had been delivered by the Associated Press
to the New York papers. Something like 60 columns respecting the matter
had been printed.
However, “The point to be noticed,” says your writer, “is that it [the
Associated Press] might color news if it wanted to, and that it does
exercise certain monopolistic functions. That in itself is a dangerous
state of affairs; but it seems to be one that might be rectified.” And,
as a remedy, he proposes that “its service should be open to all
customers.” This is most interesting. If the news-service is
untrustworthy, it would naturally seem plain that the activities of the
agency should be restricted, not extended. Instead of enlarging its
field of operations, there should be, if possible, a law forbidding it
to take in any new members, or, indeed, summarily putting it out of
business. If the Associated Press is corrupt, it is too large now, and
no other newspaper should be subjected to its baleful influence.
Your critic adds that then, “if its news were none the less unfair, some
arrangement could presumably be made for government restraint.” Since
the battle against government control of the press was fought nearly two
centuries ago, it seems scarcely worth while to waste much effort over
this suggestion. Censorship by the king’s agents was the finest flower
of mediæval tyranny. It is hard to believe that anyone, in this hour,
should suggest a return to it.
Under the closely censored method of this coöperative organization,
notwithstanding the wide range of its operations, and although its
service has included millions of words every month, it is proper to say
that there has never been a trial for libel, nor have the expenses in
connection with libel suits exceeded a thousand dollars in the
aggregate. This should be accepted as some evidence of the standard of
accuracy maintained.
As to the refusal of the Associated Press to admit to membership every
applicant, the suggestion is made that this puts such a limit on the
number of newspapers as to “stifle trade in the selling of news.” Thus,
says your critic, the Association is “the mother, potential and
sometimes actual, of countless small monopolies.” In reply, it may be
said that we are in no danger of a dearth of newspapers. There are more
news journals in the United States than in all the world beside. If the
whole foreign world were divided into nations of the size of this
country, each nation would have but 80 daily newspapers, while we have
over 2,400. And as to circulation, we issue a copy of a daily paper for
every three of our citizens who can read and are over ten years of age.
With our methods of rapid transportation, hundreds of daily papers might
be discontinued, and still leave every citizen able to have his morning
paper delivered at his breakfast table. Every morning paper between New
York and Chicago might be suppressed, and yet, by the fast mail trains,
papers from the two terminal cities could be delivered so promptly that
no one in the intervening area would be left without the current world’s
news. Every angle of every fad, or _ism_, outside the walls of Bedlam,
finds an advocate with the largest freedom of expression. Our need is
not for more papers, but for better papers—papers issuing truthful news
and with clearer sense of perspective as to news.
Entirely independent of the Associated Press, or any influence it might
have upon the situation, there has been a noticeable shrinkage in the
number of important newspapers in the recent past. One reason has been
the lack of demand by the public for the old-time partisan journal.
Instead, the very proper requirement has been for papers furnishing the
news impartially, and communities therefore no longer divide, as
formerly, on political lines in their choice of newspapers. The
increased cost of white paper and of labor has also had an effect.
Since there are some 500 or more daily newspapers getting on very well
without the advantage of the Associated Press “franchises,” it can
hardly be said that we have reached a stage where this service is
indispensable. This is strikingly true in the light of the fact that in
a number of cities the papers making the largest profits are those that
have not, nor have ever had, membership in the Associated Press.
It will be agreed at once that private right must ever give way to
public good. If it can be shown that, as contended, the national welfare
requires that those who, without any advantage over their fellow
editors, have built up an efficient coöperative news-gathering agency,
must share the accumulated value of the good-will they have achieved,
with those who have been less energetic, we may have to give heed to the
claim. Such a contention, so persistently urged as it has been, is
certainly flattering to the membership and management of the Associated
Press.
But, however agreeable it always is to divide up other people’s
property, before settling the matter there are some things to think of.
First, it must be the public good that forces this invasion of private
right, not the desire of someone who, with an itch to start a newspaper,
feels that he would prefer the Associated Press service. Second, the
practical effect of a rule such as was laid down by the Illinois Supreme
Court, requiring the organization to render service to all applicants,
must be carefully considered. News is not a commodity of the nature of
coal, or wood. It is incorporeal. It does not pass from seller to buyer
in the way ordinary commodities do. Although the buyer receives it, the
seller does not cease to possess it. In order to make a news-gathering
agency possible, it has been found necessary to limit, by stringent
rules, the use of the service by the member. Thus each member of the
Associated Press is prohibited from making any use of the dispatches
furnished him, other than to publish them in his newspaper. If such a
restriction were not imposed, any member, on receipt of his news
service, might at once set up an agency of his own and put an end to the
general organization. This rule, as well as all disciplinary measures,
would disappear under the plan proposed by the critic in the _Atlantic_.
A buyer might be expelled, but to-morrow he could demand readmission.
There would in practice no longer be members with a right of censorship
over the management; instead, there would be one seller and an unlimited
number of buyers. Then, indeed, there would be a monopoly of the worst
sort. And government censorship, with all of its attendant and long
since admitted evils, would follow. Under a Republican administration,
we should have a Republican censor; under a Democratic administration, a
Democratic censor. And a free press would no longer exist.
Absolute journalistic inerrancy is not possible. But we are much nearer
it to-day than ever before. And it is toward approximate inerrancy in
its despatches that the Associated Press is striving. If in its method
of organization, or in its manner of administration, it is violating any
law, or is making for evil, then it should be punished, or suppressed.
If any better method for securing an honest, impartial news service can
be devised, by all means let us have it. But that the plan proposed
would better the situation, is clearly open to doubt.
CONFESSIONS OF A PROVINCIAL EDITOR
BY PARACELSUS
There is something at once deliciously humorous and pathetic, to the
editor of a small daily in the provinces, about that old-fashioned
phrase, “the liberty of the press.” It is another one of those matters
lying so near the marge-land of what is mirthful and what is sad that a
tilt of the mood may slip it into either. To the general, doubtless, it
is a truth so obvious that it is never questioned, a bequest from our
forefathers that has paid no inheritance tax to time. In all the host of
things insidiously un-American which have crept into our life, thank
Heaven! say these unconscious Pharisees, the “press,” if somewhat
freakish, has remained free. So it is served up as a toast at banquets,
garnished with florid rhetoric; it is still heard from old-fashioned
pulpits; it cannot die, even though the conditions which made the phrase
possible have passed away.
The pooh-poohing of the elders, the scoffing of the experienced, has
little effect upon a boy’s mind when it tries to do away with so
palpable a truth as that concerning the inability of a chopped-up snake
to die until sunset, or that matter-of-fact verity that devil’s darning
needles have little aim in life save to sew up the ears of youths and
maidens. So with that glib old fantasy, “America’s free and untrammeled
press”: it needs a vast deal of argument to convince an older public
that, as a matter to be accepted without a question, it has no right to
exist. The conditioning clause was tacked on some years ago, doubtless
when the old-time weekly began to expand into the modern small daily.
The weekly was a periodic pamphlet; the daily disdained its inheritance,
and subordinated the expression of opinion to the printing of those
matters from which opinion is made. The cost of equipment of a daily
newspaper, compared to the old-fashioned weekly, as a general thing
makes necessary for the launching of such a venture a well-organized
stock company, and in this lies much of the trouble.