Search

The article focuses on the management of the Victorian local newspaper. While Victorian journalism has received a great deal of attention from historians its commercial aspect has been relatively neglected. The development of a few of the larger enterprises has been explored, but still little is known of the detailed organization and management of a Victorian provincial paper. The Victorians themselves recognized that the commercial aspect was vital to the whole institution of the Press, and the newspaper proprietor was commonly accorded a higher status than the mere journalist. Business records, however, are particularly vulnerable to the passing of time, and those of newspaper enterprises have also been subject to a more than usual proclivity for secrecy on the part of the proprietors. Further losses occurred as the result of structural change in the industry in the twentieth century. Such records as do survive are, therefore, all the more important, and it is from one such survival that an attempt is made to show how a small provincial paper was conducted.

The article offers interesting insights into the character and particularly the business methods of one of the greatest English newspaper proprietors. The absence of any mention of the newspaper Bell's Universal Advertiser from the few published studies of the career of its proprietor, John Bell, is both surprising and unfortunate. Certainly Bell's reputation and chief importance in the history of journalism rests on his conduct of various important periodicals. Nevertheless, the Universal Advertiser has an interesting place in his history. While the paper lasted for only a short two months, the preparations for its birth were a full eight years in the making. It was a favorite brainchild of Bell's and on it he lavished in full his considerable and unusual talents as a newspaper publisher. The Universal Advertiser's history, essentially the story of Bell's activities in preparing, publishing, promoting, and defending the journal, throws light on important social and economic factors influencing the behavior of newspapermen of the time. Newspaper proprietors throughout the eighteenth century shared with most industrialists the problem of adjusting to the steady growth of the consumer market.

The author comments on the science-versus-press controversy whereby scientists are conceived to be bad copy, inaccessible, unintelligible and uncooperative, or the press being thought to inaccurately sensationalize scientists and misinterpret their discoveries in the interest of a good story. He states that there are not supporting statistics for the accusation that the press is too often inaccurate and sensational. He says that publishers and editors agree that the press is not perfect, committing errors over and over again. Science writing is getting better and better every day in every way and the reporting of scientific discoveries is no longer the easy task as it was some years ago.

Presents editorial activities that covers the period from December 1, 1967, through November 30, 1968 in the journal "Annals of the Association of American Geographers" in the U.S. Inclusion of the manuscripts; Maximum length of the papers; Submission of reports during the annual meeting.

This article features the history of the newspaper, The Drivers' Mirror, published for the British military from 1942 to 1943. The editorial of the first number of the newspaper, published by 129 Infantry Brigade Company on November 9, 1942, quoted a reporter in the Daily Express who said: Troops all over the country are rebelling against the flood of official and private enterprise journalism with which they are being swamped. They want publications reflecting their own thoughts and feelings rather than scores of papers published for profit by outside interests. The newspaper began publication at a camp near Canterbury and ran for 26 weekly issues in a small format of about newspaper size until May 26, 1943. In June 1943 the format was changed to more than twice the size. Each issue of the paper contained an editorial which commented on the work of the editorial staff. The sports features were regular and comprehensive. Football was fully reported and comments made if necessary. There were illustrations in each issue. Some were original cartoons and some pictures cut out of magazines. It is notable that there were no pin-ups and no sexy features. The standard of journalism was high. Even the serious news items were written in straightforward plain language which could be followed by all.

The article focuses on the history of advertising in newspapers in London, England between 1650 and 1750. It may be approached from at least three directions. First, there is the history of advertising per se; in this respect subsequent general histories have made little advance on Henry Sampson's pioneering work published almost a century ago. Blanche B. Elliott in A History of English Advertising has covered fresh ground in her examination of the advertisement sheets in the late seventeenth century, but has barely touched upon the much larger subject of advertising in newspapers proper during the period under review. The historians have concentrated somewhat superficially on the evident humor, quaintness, and evocativeness of many of the advertisements and have almost entirely neglected any quantitative analysis. Secondly, advertising may be considered as part of the history of journalism, a legitimate approach when one appreciates that by 1750, 75% of space in some dailies was being devoted to advertisements. Thirdly, the advertisements may be studied as a source for literary, economic, and social history.

The author reflects on the science-versus-press controversy. He asserts that the problem stems from wrong attitudes on both sides where two major cultural defects appear. The defect on the part of the press comes from the tendency to regard as news only that information which the largest number of people will most readily buy rather than considering the important information of a fresh kind irrespective of its sales appeal. On the part of the scientists, they make the new findings and they alone know and understand them and they ought to be best able to comment on them. The problem is communication. The scientists should make the public understand what their findings mean.

The author comments on the concept that scientists are bad copy, inaccessible, uncooperative and uncooperative. He asserts that the statement is an unfair characterization, by and large, and takes exception claiming that many scientists work with reporters easily. He suggests that scientists are well-organized and are not offended at being asked for a reasonable amount of their time. They also have little trouble in describing the details of their work in fairly nontechnical terms and even benefit from a good interview's give-and-take.

This article presents an abstract of the paper The British Working-Class Press in 186. This paper dealt mainly with five weekly journals, all published in London, England. It included Bee-Hive, Commonwealth, Working Man, International Courier and National Reformer. The Bee-Hive, owned by the Trades Newspaper Co., was still primarily a trade union newspaper; but concerned with working-class political activities. George Potter was manager, and Robert Hartwell was the editor. Due to a dispute with the Junta, the Bee-Hive had been ex-communicated by the London Trades Council. The Commonwealth was owned by the Industrial Newspaper Co. Set up in 1865 when Marx and the Junta gave up hope of gaining control of the Bee-Hive, the paper took over the Miner and Workman's Advocate, and re-launched it as the organ of the International. The title was changed to Commonwealth in February 1866, when a group of middle-class Reformers became shareholders. As a result of their influence, policies were moderated, and by the beginning of 1867, the Commonwealth was mainly a mouthpiece for the Reform League. The Working Man and the International Courier were companion-papers, with Joseph Collet as editor-proprietor. The Working Man was the organ of the 0'Brienite National Reform League; the International Courier became the organ of the International in 1867. The National Reformer--Secular Advocate and Freethought Journal--was by 1867 owned as well as edited by Charles Bradlaugh; and it was regarded by him as an organ of the Reform League.

The article reports on the significant events that had occurred in the Textile Institute, the official publication of textile industry in England for the past ten years. The paper was able to formulate the policy of the editorial board which aims to ensure enough coverage of the happenings in the industry. The list of members of the publication grow rapidly which shows that many are interested to share their views. The policies have become subject of individual discussion on the leader page of the periodical. The opinions expressed by the people in the publication has been helpful to the council. It was reported that the main source of disappointment for the past decade was the paucity of the letters to the editor. Moreover, the space evolved into a more confined area in the paper.

The article presents historical analysis of trade union press. Labor journalism has come a long way since the appearance of the Machinists and Blacksmiths International Journal in 1863. With more than 600 publications and an estimated readership exceeding 20,000,000, the union press wields a major influence on the American public. Today the union press is read by union members and the general public in steadily increasing numbers, and the frequency with which it is quoted by reporters for the daily newspapers, editorial writers, and others indicates that these publications have something of broad interest to tell the American public. Among the 600 publications there is a wide variety of organizational sponsors. Papers and/or magazines are published by the national federations such as the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O.) and the associated railroad brotherhoods; by national unions such as the Steelworkers, Automobile Workers, and Carpenters; by districts of various unions; and by state, county, or city A.F.L.-C.I.O. federations, as well as by local unions.

The article focuses on newspaper bias in the United States. For a measure of the degree of bias of each newspaper, analysis of the relative proportions of favorable and unfavorable themes in the stimulus material would be necessary. A survey of newspaper correspondents undertaken by "The Saturday Review" of Literature indicates that the reporters polled felt that the Hearst Press (the Daily Mirror is a Hearst publication) was "guilty of bias reporting." "The New York Post" was also singled out for unfavorable comments with respect to deliberate bias. Credited for fair and objective coverage was the New York Herald-Tribune. The motivation behind the relationship of editorial policy and content is probably the attempts of editors and publishers to represent particular points of view. In addition to such obviously persuasive efforts, certain characteristics of newspapers with mass circulations and their audiences may influence the relationship. The restrictions placed on the newspaper by the nature of the mass communication process may make the behavior of newspapers more predictable than individual behavior.

The author reflects on the science-versus-press controversy. He cites the fact that there have been times when mistakes were made in science stories and some scientists have been uncooperative in aiding the press reporter factually in order to present new scientific discoveries to the public. He asserts that both parties should not be condemned generally. He states that it is true that reporters at times present a sensational instead of a factual story making scientific investigators reluctant to cooperate with the writers.

The author reflects on the importance of communicating science to the lay people. He states that it is a necessity that scientific discoveries and their implications should be communicated to all the people because they have to know the true from the false, the competent from the bungler, and the plausible from the impossible. He asserts that the scientist has the responsibility of helping the reporters and interpreters to explain the facts discovered and their implications so that the common man can see the promised goals beyond.

The author comments on the science-versus-press controversy, whereby scientists are conceived to be bad copy, inaccessible, unintelligible and uncooperative, or the press being thought to inaccurately sensationalize scientists and misinterpret their discoveries in the interest of a good story. He cites the Chicago Conference on Nuclear Physics and the Conference on Solar Energy at the University of Wisconsin where newspaper reporters were not allowed to attend the meeting. The press stated that the scientists are the first to denounce secrecy but the first thing they do is to close the doors to the press. He further talks about the foundation of the lack of cooperation by scientists to science reporters.

Information about several papers discussed at the meeting of the National Art Education Association (NAEA) Council is presented. A progress report has been submitted which includes a statement of beliefs, in which the Council has approved and suggested two minor revision, and a questionnaire survey prepared by Joe Boltz. In addition, the Council has recommended several projects including the preparation of statement of policy regarding editorial work and continued work on statement beliefs.

Investigates the themes in the political journalism of Jonathan Swift. Persuasive discourse in the history of British political pamphleteering; Awareness to the demands and prejudices of rural and conservative audiences; Use of rhetoric devices in writing.

Introduces several different articles featured in various periodicals published in different parts of the U.S. that are of particular interest to educators and professionals in the field of speech and public speaking, presented in issue number 1, volume XXXIII dated February 1947, of the journal 'The Quarterly Journal of Speech.' 'Broadcasting to an Enemy Country: What Appeals are Effective, and Why?' by Floyd H. Allport and Mary Mathes Simpson. 'Lucy Stone: Crusader for Human Rights,' by Ramona Sawyer Barth.' The Open Air Forum,' by Walter Wolf Caffyn. 'Let's Not Debate: Pupils Should Learn the Techniques of Settlement, Not Argument, in Our Schools,' Willis F. Dunbar.

The article presents several comments published in different magazines in the U.S. regarding the visa issue. The issue of the "Bulletin" on U.S. visa policy provoked widespread comment in the press at home and abroad. In the editorial "Visa Nightmare" of the "Washington Post," it stressed Americans skilled in the physical sciences have again taught the country to establish civilian control of atomic energy. However, the editorial of "The Saturday Evening Post" appears hardly serious enough to rationalize terrified restraints on the travels of scholars and specialists about the world. Comments from abroad that were published in different periodicals are presented.

The article presents a reply to comments on the author's article "Through the Looking Glass Self Darkly: A Glossary for the Profession," which appeared in the April 1972 issue of the journal "Sociological Focus." The article was intended to be an introspective probing of the discipline and its advocates collective consciousness as well as witty journalism. Although the primary concern was with sociologists becoming cognizant of themselves as perpetual role feigners in bureaucratic networks where the "peter principle" is an inevitable occurrence, it was clearly stated that the glossary contained role concepts applicable not only to sociology but to other disciplines and academic settings. Obviously not all occupational milieu have their role bummers, role casters, or role defenders. While all academic disciplines certainly have their role bidders, role barriers, and role bait, no other social or behavioral science has as one of its dominant objectives the systematic scrutiny of roles as focal units of social systems; the creation of role types, sets and paradigms; and even the analytical extermination of roles via the process labeled theoretical construction. Sociologists alone are the chief hierophants of roles. i.e., role ravers.