Page:Oregon Exchanges volume 5.pdf/159

OREGON EXCHANGES of my topic. It is a sad commentary on our newspaper and business intelligence that anyone should feel it necessary or anything but a waste of time to suggest talking about standing out against it. Already we should have stood out against it to such a degree that it was no longer offered to us.

This stuff is not advertising for which payment is to be made, although a checking copy is usually requested. Is it news? It is offered as news and it is asserted that our “readers will undoubtedly be interested in it.” To this question the answer depends on our definition of news. If the definition of anyone here is one that permits the running of this “publicity propaganda” as news, then I am not talking to him except to say that he is crazy and needs to revise his definition.

Many definitions of news have been attempted. For the present purpose the best I have seen is as follows:

“If the paper wants it worse than the person handing it in, it’s news.”

“If the person handing it in wants it published worse than the newspaper, it’s advertising.”

It may be that I am off my subject in that ex hypothesi we are not talking about news but about free publicity propaganda, but I know that there are some persons who call themselves newspaper men who run this stuff we are talking about, really thinking it is news. I ask them to apply the test I have just given. Who wants it published most’? And I ask them to take for granted that if the stuff comes from an advertising agency it is not news.

Someone gets paid for writing this stuff, someone is paying N. W. Ayer for pushing the Society for Visual Education and for telling us about Spanish green olives. The Nash car publicity and the Goodyear tire stuff from Los Angeles are both the product of the mercenary pen. If you get a mat you may bet your column rules that someone got some money for making it. Out of the kindness of some big heart overflowing with good will for the country publisher, all these people were hired to produce the stuff for you to run in your papers—free.

You know that if these publicity hounds want their stuff run badly enough they will pay for it. But never in this world will they pay for it so long as they can find someone to run it without pay. I had my own lesson. It was some kind of motor grease week. The local Standard Oil agent had a nice story for each day, and I fell for the first one. That night the Oregonian came in with absolutely the same thing occupying a fine display space which I am fully persuaded was not given away for the purpose. Neither was any more space in the Bend Bulletin given away. It was about that time that I began to see the light. (The Standard Oil company is a great light-bringer anyway.) This light has been burning steadily in our office ever since.

You never think or talk about standing out against drinking polluted water, water that you know is polluted, nor of standing out against exposing yourself to disease germs, nor of standing out against prosperity. Why should we even think of having to stand out, to battle against, the free-publicity evil? If we run this propaganda it is because we are too lazy to get up the news that we need to fill our columns and because we fear lest we may be denied some paid advertising if we do not give favors.

I know definitely that we have lost advertising because we refused free publicity. I know, too, that our news is on a higher plane because of our refusal to run this free publicity. So far as the loss of advertising is concerned I am prouder of that than of any advertising we ever carried because it marks an independence and the establishment of a standard that I believe every newspaper man must attain if his profession is to