Minnesota Rag by Fred Friendly - Essay Example

Minnesota Rag: Corruption, Yellow Journalism, and the Case that Saved Freedom of the Press In Minnesota Rag Fred W. Friendly writes an interesting historical narrative on a seminal First Amendment case. Friendly, a long respected and thought provoking journalist brings to this book a rich intellectual involvement in the First Amendment coupled with a reporter's enthusiasm. This double perspective invigorates the entire book. It was at Duluth in 1917, from where Friendly's story started. It was an iron rich town where corrupt elements developed two and a half years earlier than the eighteenth amendment under a local prohibition law. Johan Morrison began to publish the Rip-Saw, this was published weekly which exposed the illegal uses and other vice, which according to Morrison were carried out directly or indirectly by the municipal authorities. Of the targets of the newspapers were the two legislators who weren't satisfied with route to ordinary defamation laws. With the help of the press established as Minnesota they sketched the Public Nuisance Law 1925 which allowed the permanent judge to direct the newspapers from publishing upon a finding that is "customarily or regularly" published "defamatory, malicious and scandalous" material. The defense was a truth given that the intention behind were good for justified ends. This was passed with little or no fame and press didn't show up an opposition, but before Duluth representatives, in order to shut down the Rip-Saw with the help of gag law, Morrison died. (P.14-27) Apart from the above another crisis rose of the whiskey trade from Canada, when Jay Near and an associate started the publication of the scandal sheet of their own called Saturday Press. While the conventional press often soft-pedaled its reporting on vice and corruption, the Press held nothing sacred. Sometimes trustfully but always recklessly, it accused law enforcement and political figures of seizing every available illicit opportunity. Unlike, Morrison, the publishers of the Press were scandalmongers without redeeming moral zeal, and they were frequently accused of using their paper as an instrument of blackmail (p. 32-35). In May 1928, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law's constitutionality, finding the Press to be a nuisance to public comfort and repose akin to noxious weeds, dogs and houses of prostitution. The court had no difficulty distinguishing "nuisances" like Near's rag from the "the sincere and honest voice of the press," which had no need to fear the statute (p 61). The constitutional guarantee, the court insisted, extends only to the boundaries of propriety; "licentiousness" is unprotected (p. 61-62). Consequently, the court found that "there is no constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is true" p62. And when the fledgling American Civil Liberties Union announced that it would undertake an appeal to the Supreme Court on Near's behalf (p. .63-64), the Minneapolis Evening Tibune's editorial echoed the court's emphasis on the need to protect only "responsible" journalism: "The Civil Liberties Union will no doubt make a great pother about the freedom of the press, but the legitimate newspapers will be rather bored than excited about it" (p.64-65). Enter Colonel Robert R. McCormick and his Chicago Tribune. Obsessed by government hostility to press freedoms McCormick nudged out the ACLU and assumed the financial burden and strategic control of the case. He believed that Near's accusation about local politicians probably were true (p. 70), and he feared in any event that, unless stamped out quickly, Minnesota technique for suppressing newspapers would spread to other states (p. 78). Client and patron soon developed divergent interest; while Near bridled at delays in resuming his tawdry livelihood, McCormick and his law firm were intent on gaining a constitutional victory at the highest level (p. 77, 84-87). In the end, McCormick had his way. At oral argument before the Supreme Court, Weymouth Kirkland, counsel for Near, put his case on the line: It is argued that legitimate newspapers need not fear this statute. On the contrary, every legitimate newspaper in the country regularly and customarily publishes defamation, as it has a right to in criticizing government agencies..Every person does have a constitutional right to publish malicious, scandalous and defamatory matter, though untrue and with had motives, and for unjustifiable ends. (p. 127) I believe that the most arresting feature of the book is its revelation of the complicity of the established Minnesota Press in drafting and lobbying for the Public Nuisance Law (p. 21, 64). Of course, the penny press of yesteryear was bitterly competitive, but the notion of the press organization's helping to police the press, even to weed out "irresponsible" elements, seems inconceivable today. Despite increasing concentration of media ownership, the industry is now even less likely to speak with one voice on these matters than it was in the 1920's. Sometimes it seems there are as many constitutional theories and strategies as there are outlets. The division within the industry becomes apparent upon a brief canvassing of press reactions to alleged attempts to undermine press freedoms. Thus, as Minnesota Rag itself reminds us, the press often suffers self-inflicted wounds. My opinion is simply that journalism attracts more than its share of cantankerous, free thinking individuals. Publishers may use syndicated stories and even canned editorials, but when the first amendment is at issue, many play the role of scholar, historian, theorist, libertarian, revolutionary. They may run to the government for antitrust relief from the pressures of competition, but they will fight to the last reporter for the right to say what they please. The virtues of a "cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press" as a check on government are often proclaimed, but the industry's lack of unity is rarely seen for its virtues. If democracy is indeed meant to flourish in a free marketplace of ideas, we ought to welcome that lack of discipline, for it ensures the demise of any budding journalistic orthodoxy. If the journalistic fashion is for the press to follow a President or, as in Minnesota fifty years ago, to gang up on one of its own, some publisher will emerge to defy both government and fashion. This truculence is a charming feature of human nature and a necessary safety valve for the constitution and democratic society. Works Cited Friendly, Fred W. Minnesota Rag: Corruption, Yellow Journalism, and the Case that Saved Freedom of the Press, University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Read More