Free Ads for Willie Hearst
I don’t like to jump
on a man when he is down, particularly when I think he is only half-way
down and rapidly rising again. I refer to my friend, Mr. Hearst,
who is just now getting all sorts of advertising from his business
rivals because he used unparliamentary language regarding the late
President McKinley previous to the assassination. Hearst is now
making himself a laughing-stock, outdoing all in the most extravagant
laudations of the late President McKinley, putting him on a pedestal
with Lincoln and Washington; whereas it was not many weeks ago that
he spoke of him as—
one, the most despised and hated creature in the hemisphere—his
name hooted, his figure burned in effigy.”
The trouble with Hearst
is that he has no clear conception of either politics or business,
and is running his paper upon the plan of giving the people the
views he thinks they want, irrespective of whether those views are
right or wrong; and, moreover, with no accurate knowledge of what
is really wanted. He is like a grocer meeting the demand of his
customers for cheap sugar by giving them sanded sugar and then excusing
himself by saying he thought they wanted sanded sugar.
Hearst has neither morals nor science
to guide him in running his papers, and that he is making a financial
success is only to be explained on the hypothesis that his competitors
are not only lacking in what he lacks, but they lack his money and
dash as well.
It’s really a great pity that Hearst
does not follow C more religiously.
It would be a good thing for both his readers and his exchequer.
If I could not add $100,000 a year to his profits by having the
direction of his editorial policy, I would consider my brain failing.
People no longer are silly enough
to wish individuals made responsible for the faults of a political
and industrial system confessedly beyond the control of any individual.
It’s well enough to make fun of the
Hannas and the Morgans, and direct attention to their confessed
inability to control the financial forces under their nominal control,
but to vituperate them simply clouds the issue. We do not wish to
know whether Hanna is a brute or an angel, but we do wish the public
to realize that whether he is one or the other that the brutality
of the industrial system forces him to brutal methods. Hearst knows
this well enough himself. There is no business man that is not forced
to know it. Now, knowing that it is the system and not the Hanna,
why does he not base his editorials on the facts of the case as
they are, and not as he thinks the public fancy them. The trouble
with Hearst and his editors is that they have never mixed with the
people and they underrate the intelligence of the masses. Mr. Hearst
should accompany me on one of my lecturing trips if he would get
next. I need a good newspaper man on my entourage when I