news, we sympathize with them. Six or seven years ago we printed a series of articles which dealt with the general subject of "tainted news," and from time to time since then we have pointed out examples of this insidious practice. During this time not less than a score of persons have come to us with alleged examples of tampering with the news on the part of the Associated Press. All of these cases we looked into with care and pains, and many of the same were investigated by other publications and persons. We have never found a case that justified us in publishing the details or in making any charge of wilful distortion against the Associated Press.
I wrote now to "Collier's Weekly." They had investigated
a score of cases, here was one more. Would they agree to
investigate this, and to publish the facts? To this challenge
"Collier's Weekly" made no response. "Collier's Weekly" did
not investigate, and it never published a line about the matter.
Then I wrote to the editors of the "Outlook," the extremely
pious instrument of the "clerical camouflage." In its issue of
May 30, 1914, the "Outlook" had published two articles dealing
with the Associated Press. I now wrote and invited it to take
up this case, and the "Outlook" did not reply. Also I wrote
"The Independent," which was once a liberal paper, and it too
refused any publicity.
To return to the three newspapers which answered my letter: Mr. Frederick S. Forbes, acting managing editor of the "Philadelphia North American," replied that his paper had "frequently had occasion to criticize the news distributing agencies of the country," and would investigate my story. That was the last I ever heard from the matter. When I wrote to remind the "Philadelphia North American," they did not answer. In the course of a year I wrote several times, but they did not answer.
And then the "New York World." The "World" had published a challenge, defying anyone to point out where it had failed to print important news. I now took this case of the Associated Press to the "World," and the "World" answered that having published my telegram to the President from Denver, the "World" had published the news! The fact that the "World" had got this telegram from me instead of from the Associated Press—that was not news! The fact that I had published a challenge, deliberately repeating the words of the "Masses" editors, and that the Associated Press and all its newspapers had passed my challenge by—that was not news, in the judgment of the "World"!
