Word: hearstly
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1920-1929
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Crossing the continent last fortnight from California?to join Mrs. Hearst in Manhattan, as he does at least once each year (wedding anniversary)?Mr. Hearst felt a public message stirring within him. President Hoover had just gone to Manhattan and addressed the Associated Press on the subject of crime and law enforcement (TIME, April 29). In the presidential reasoning, Publisher Hearst thought he detected flaws. Himself the holder of many an A. P. franchise, he proposed to tear apart and answer what President Hoover had said to the assembled editors and publishers...
...reasons best known to himself, Mr. Hearst did not telegraph en route to his nearest editor (Omaha News-Bee). Nor could he contain himself until he reached the next-nearest Hearst city, Chicago. Instead, he arranged to be met in Kansas City by a representative of that city's daily Star, a most independent un-Hearstlike newspaper. Into the Star man's hands Mr. Hearst delivered a 3,000 word statement entitled: "We Need Laws We can Respect." He requested the Star man explicitly to see that the Star should publish the statement in full...
Faithfully, the Star man transmitted to his chief the Hearst request. Shrewdly, the Star chief smelled a large, shadowy, Hearstlike rat. He saw to it that the Star did not print the Hearst statement as Mr. Hearst had planned. It required a long-distance call from Mr. Hearst's secretary in Chicago before the Star printed the Hearst statement at all. Then the Star chopped the thing up and printed about one-third of it on page 17, next to a comic strip...
That was enough, however, for Hearst purposes. Last week the full statement was spread across the U. S. in the Hearst papers and in paid advertisements in other papers under the byline: "William Randolph Hearst in the Kansas City Star...
Irritated, General Manager George B. Longan of the Star in turn issued a statement. In part, he said: "The Star is not concerned over Mr. Hearst's views. . . . What we objected to was the reprinting of an article that gave the appearance of being an editorial written for the Star by Mr. Hearst. Also on account of the way in which it was used it indicated that the Star had changed its attitude on law enforcement...