The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, June 2, 1919, Page 7

A PEOPLE’S PRESS T NEEDS little argument to prove what a tremendous power the press has. over public opinion. It needs. little argument to prove thaig this power is exerted, in the case of nine papers out of ten, in the interests of business and special privilege, whenever these interests conflict with those of the common people. The reason for this is the fact that advertising is so much more profitable than the money that is received for subscriptions. The average Sunday newspaper actually costs, for the white paper alone, more than the nickel that it sells for on the street. Commis- sions, bad debts, etc., eat up a considerable share of-the money re- .ceived from the subscriber. It is a troublesome business compared with the ease with which advertising money is collected, with a minimum of effort, from efficiently organized business firms. The result is that the advertiser gets whatever he wants from the average newspaper, while the reader is treated with ill-concealed scorn. The advertising columns are the ones that are watched most carefully by the average editor; the editorial and news columns, in a great many cases, are used mainly to help advertising. The prostitution of the newspaper to the interests of big busi- ness was first noticed many years ago by thoughtful public men. A law was passed requiring a statement of ownership to be printed somewhere in the paper s every six months. But this did not meet the situation. Great corporations, like the Anaconda Copper Min- ing company of Montana, which actually owned newspapers, merely trans- ferred their shares to a “dummy” stockholder. The rule for publicity of own- ership did not touch in any way- the main problem— that of advertisers’ con- trol over news and edi-- _torial columns. - North Dakota has gone ahead in an effort to solve.the real problem in a series of laws, known as the public printing laws, just as important to the American public as the industrial measures re- cently passed by the leg- _islature. : The old law in North Dakota provided for the distribution of county printing to three papers in each county, state print- ing among two papers in each county, which might or might not be the papers: carrying county printing, while legal notices of suits, foreclosures, etc., might be carried in any paper in the county. This meant a heavy expense for the county and state in dupli- cation of printing; it meant that a person who / / [ wanted to protect himself ¥ / against lawsuits, etc., / /? [ [ ( must take every paper in L the county. i : The recent farmers’ legislature adopted a new : plan. It provided that all public printing, state and county, and all legal mnotices shall be printed in ONE paper in each county, thus cutting down the expense sharply and making it possible for every person to keep informed on all matters which might affect his- legal rights. = But the legislature wisely went farther than this. It provided that the official paper in each county is to be selected, every two years, BY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE AT THE GEN- ' ERAL ELECTION. 2 Too little attention has been paid to North Dakota’s new print- ing laws and their probable effect. One effect they doubtless will have is to reduce expense. through failure to learn of legal proceedings. ' But by far the greatest importance of the new printing laws of North Dakota is that they will help to build up a people’s press. The county and state official business and the printing of legal no- tices for two years will mean a good business for any newspaper. Naturally ‘all the papers will be anxious to be selected. The selec- tion will be made BY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. The newspapers il - will be compelled to look for their money, not to the advertising : grumbsvthat may be drop; ed people themselves. Wi from the table of big business, but to h is as it should be. —Drawn expressly for the Leader by W. C. Morris. They will prevent losses to farmers_ ‘ basis. i They did their work as the employes of a large business institution . i SOME FAIR QUESTIONS F THE world wheat situation should warrant a price beyond the I minimum guaranteed by congress, is there any gqod reason why the wheat farmers should not receive it? Why should all other production activities be allowed unregulated market condi- tions and the wheat farmers singled out for a new kind of drastic regulation which enforces production below cost? What does the government, which has the power to keep wheat - to the minimum or allow it to follow an upward market, intend to do? Julius Barnes, head of the grain corporation, has recently expressed himself in terms which practically remove doubt as to present intentions at least. In answer to a letter from the National Grange he asks: : ~~ What interest have the producers of wheat in my work since they will get the $2.26 price guaranteed to them by law? Their interest is the prot§pect of a fair market price, which is the interest of any group of producers doing business under our present system of society. If the government is going to change our system of society by all means make the change general in the interest of the people and net a drastic regulation of some of the people for the profits of the few upstairs. The big interests are pulling every wire they have to provide cheap bread at the expense of the farmer as an ex- cuse for lowering wages. And Mr. Barnes’ question, which surprises as coming from a man supposedly intelligent, would indicate that he was preparing to play their game. Without counting on drouth, floods and wet weather, hail storms, grasshoppers, rust, wheat diseases and a number of other things which bite seriously into our wheat crop every year, we have prospects of a good crop, but the wheat-producing areas of the world in gen- eral are in bad shape. Famine, revolution, lack of transportation will reduce the available supply to such an extent that our wheat should sell well over the minimum. Whatever premium the market offers the farmers should have. The price fixed in September, 1917, was nearly one dol- lar under the market price and competent experts showed that it was then below the cost of produc- tion. That was nearly two years ago, during which _ time the price of prac- ticallyeverythin g the farmer must get from the outside hasincreased. What has become of that life and death principle of business cost plus a reasonable profit? Why should it apply to all ex- cept the wheat farmer? \\}\\ 3 CUTTING DOWN THE OVERHEAD : / CCORDING to the records of the state auditor, the sixteenth A legislative assembly of North Dakota, in session last win- ter, cost the state $87,299.91, or just $20,027.22 less than the previous session, when the legislature was only partly con- trolled by the Nonpartisan league farmers. These figures include the mileage of members, their salaries and those of ‘employes, the printing expenses and miscellaneous expenditures. Four years ago, when the old guard was in full control, the legislature’s expenses were $144,735.19, or $57,435.28 more than the farmers’ assembly. - The legislature spent only 54 days in session. This meant the. reduction of many expenses. North Dakota was run on a business The farmers made legislation the business of the state. are expected to run theirs. There has been much talk and little action in recent years con- cerning. “business administrations.”” One of the first prigciples i of business is holding down the “overhead expenses”—that is; the mere expense of operation and administration. North Dakota has -accomplished this. It is an earnest of the rest of the farmers’ - program of saving in North Dakota. : : 2