The Roughest Campaign

"This is the roughest campaign we have ever experienced," said Dallas News Managing Editor Felix R. McKnight. Most of the other editors at the directors' meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington last week agreed with him; they were being raked by a crossfire of criticism from both sides. "Pro-Stevenson people feel that because [our] newspaper has editorially endorsed Ike," added Richmond Times-Dispatch Editor Virginius Dabney, "there is not and will not be fair treatment of Stevenson in the news columns . . . The Eisenhower people, on the other hand, complain because we aren't crusading for Ike."

Nothing better showed the hot feelings towards campaign coverage than a "warning to the public" put out last week by a group of 94 well-known U.S. writers, including 24 Pulitzer Prizewinners. The group, led by Herman (The Caine Mutiny) Wouk, John Steinbeck, John Hersey and Cleveland Amory, said it was non-partisan though the leaders are pro-Stevenson. Charged the group: "The press of the country is not giving a reliable picture of the presidential campaign." Wouk said his group had surveyed 26 newspapers in six key states (including New York), found most of the coverage "greatly favored the Republican side." No sooner had the writers made their charge than editors demanded they prove it.

Amateur Survey. Managing Editor Everett Norlander of the Chicago Daily News (which was not named) fired off wires to most of the signers, asking 1) had they read the statement before signing it, and 2) what papers, if any, had each surveyed? Oliver (Laughing Boy) LaFarge answered that "the release went beyond the statement submitted for my signature." One author had let his name be used without ever seeing the statement, while others, e.g., A. B. (Big Sky) Guthrie Jr., said they simply "took the word of the committee" on the survey. Even those like Robert E. Sherwood, who stood firm on the statement, thought no formal survey was necessary. Upton Sinclair wired the San Francisco Chronicle, which was named in the statement as unfair: "I cannot imagine having signed a statement concerning the San Francisco Chronicle, not having seen a copy for 16 years."

Marshall Field's Chicago Sun-Times, also named in the statement, easily refuted the "unfair" charge; it printed a statement from Adlai Stevenson which said that he had "no complaints against the Sun-Times." Taken aback by the uproar, Wouk himself backtracked a bit. He told the Chicago Daily News that "the survey was to be considered neither a scientific nor a professional job. Four of us got together with our wives and a couple of college students. We read papers picked at random for one week . . ."

Professional Conclusion. The Associated Press reached far different conclusions after its own professional survey. A.P. surveyed the front pages of 115 leading U.S. dailies on a day when both candidates and their major supporters were all in action, measured the space given both parties. Concluded A.P.: "In effect, the Democrats had a pronounced edge, principally because the Truman whistle-stop tour challenged both Stevenson and Eisenhower for top headline attention."

Executive Editor James S. Pope of the pro-Stevenson Louisville Courier-Journal put his finger on the chief source of the complaints. Said he: "Readers cannot judge the objectivity of a newspaper in a presidential campaign for the simple reason that they cannot read objectively. Most of them do not want objectivity--they want their side favored."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.