Variety (June 1911)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

VARIETY KIETY Pubflahcd WMkly by VAMETY PUBLISHING GO. Times Square New Tork City SIMB SILVERMAN Proprietor. CHICAGO II So. Dearborn 8t. JOHN J. O'CONNOR LONDON 6 Green St., Leicester 8q. W. BUCHANAN TAYLOB SAN FRANCISCO »0I Market St J. B. McCLBLLAN PARI8 BERLIN 61 bis. Rue Saint Dldler EDWARD O. KENDBBW 67 Unter den Linden ADVERTISEMENTS. Advertising- copy for ourrent Issue must reach New Tork office by • p. m. Wednesday. Advertisements by mall should be accompa- nied by remittance. SUBSCRIPTION RATES. Annual •* Foreign • Single copies, 10 oents. Entered as second-class matter at New Tork. Vol. XXIII. Jane 10 No. I Collier's Weekly struck home to theatricals in its series of articles on newspapers written by Will Irwin. The New York Evening Journal was the special object of the expose last week. The day after publication, William R. Hearst sued Robert J. Collier for $500,000 for libel. Mr. Irwin's story carried illustrations of advertisements and editorials in support of his state- ment that -the Evening Journal had sold its advertising pages to theatrical people, with the promise of an editor- ial by Arthur Brisbane with nearly every page advertisement. A promise of a Nell Brinkley sketch, "write-up" and "good notice" accompanied the half page advertisements. According to Mr. Irwin. Hearst wouldn't sell Brisbane for less than a $1,000 ad- vertisement (price of a page). The articles by Mr. Irwin in Collier's are touching upon the methods and policies of present day Journalism, the relations between the counting and editorial rooms. Mr. Irwin gives facts in substantiation of his statements. In mentioning the Evening Journal and its theatrical advertising in con- nection with the dramatic department of that paper, Mr. Irwin merely scrapei the surface, in so far as the actual conditions prevailing there are con- cerned. Of course, though, the alleged selling of the editorial page with an advertisement appealed to Mr. Irwin as the greatest offence to decent jour- nalism. So it In, to decent journalists, but as there is no decency in theatrical journalism, there are other things in connection with the Evening Journal's dramatic department, its vaudeville critic and theatrical advertising solici- tor that surprised the theatrical news- paper men even more. The stories in Collier's may do a lot to clean up the newspapers of this country. Mr. Irwin refers to the big dailies in his articles, without refer- ence to trade papers. Theatrical jour- nals, however, through becoming the trade papers for a profession the pub- lic is deeply interested in, get away from the cold hard "trade journal- ism." No one can easily read the Iron Age or the Dry Goods Economist, for instance, unless en- gaged in either of those trades. With theatricals, any theatre patron may become a reader of the theatrical pub- lication, finding sufficient in it to hold attention. Nowhere is there a lower grade of depravity in journalism than among the theatrical papers. They sell them- selves, blackmail, take money in the same way a highway robber might, and still run on, with no decency or honor or any one thing that would tend to make the very professionals they cater to have more respect for them than a dirty little yellow cur. It has always been that way, and may always be. When editors will per- mit their editorial and repertorial staff members to act as press agents, have outside interests, be the "mana- ger" or "agent" of theatrical people, there is small chance of a reform. Nor could a reform be expected when the managing editor of a sheet will think so little of the dignity of his position that he will stoop to become a press agent himself, for any sort of an enterprise that will repay. Nor is a reform possible when a theatrical sheet is owned by investors, without a ruling control in it, who have no pride in the paper,-but demand that a re- turn be made. That return must be had. It's up to the staff to get it. And they get it. A theatrical advertiser can dictate to a theatrical newspaper what it shall and shall not print. Mr. Irwin cites the large department stores as con- trolling in part the policy of a daily through their big advertising con- tracts. A theatrical advertiser doesn't have to be a large advertiser. He, she or it may be a little piker, spend- ing an insignificant amount yearly in the paper, but he, she or it can, and does, demand more return than the mere advertisement itself might call for. There are some advertisers in thea- trical sheets who order the critics at- tached to those papers around like so many little bell boys. These critics have two functions: to criticise and to solicit advertisements. On the business a commission is given them. The salary and commission make their weekly income from the paper. The critic-solicitor or news-gatherer-solici- tor is out for himself. He wants busi- ness because he can make money for himself. The editor tells his staff who are the "friends" of the paper, and those who are not. "The friends must be protected." Suppression of news Is essential. There have been theatrical papers con- ducted, and there are now, which find ii impossible to get out a newsy Issue because there are too many "friends" that "must be looked out for." The greatest curse a theatrical newspaper may have thrust upon It is the standing theatre advertisements. This is the club held over all the thea- trical papers by the managers. Wheth- er it is a daily or weekly ad, the club is there just the same. To "pull out an ad" is the only and surest way the manager knows of "keeping the paper in line." Variety has never been tested through not having carried the regu- lar theatre advertisements of the New York houses. The Evening Journal did not have to set the example. But the Journal did nothing to improve the situation. Instead it improved upon several fea- tures, which had become stagnated through long usage by others. The Journal lent itself freely to its theatrical advertiser, whether actor or manager. If an actress, and easily im- pressed, its critic attached himself as a press agent. But last week a legiti- mate actress intending to enter vau- deville within the month, had cards printed and scattered about, reading "Publicity by C. F. Zittel, N. Y. Jour- nal." ' Probably the theatrical advertiser from the playing ranks who has di- rected theatrical papers more wholly than anyone else of past years has been Eva Tanguay. It Is only a few days ago that Miss Tanguay caused to be printed in another theatrical pa- per a denial of a story in Varietx that she was hissed off the stage at the Colonial theatre. The same paper printing that advertisement gave a full review of Miss Tanguay's act Tuesday morning, following her ap- pearance at the Colonial Monday. The review gave her act In detail, men- tioned the applause was so terrific she was recalled for a finale encore to render "I Don't Care." That "notice" was either written by Miss Tanguay or in the office of the newspaper. Had a representative been at the theatre, it is inconceivable that even though a hardened theatrical newspaper re- porter, he could have so contorted the facts. The same paper the same day Miss Tanguay's advertisement appeared mentioned that if there were any hiss- ing, it was the calcium light. Yet, Miss Tanguay in her advertisement did not deny that she was hissed, ex- cepting to other portions of Variety's story. Not another theatrical paper reported the disturbance at the Colo- nial, a matter that was street talk along Broadway within thirty minutes after it occurred. No other paper would print it, for an "ad" now and then from Miss Tanguay had gagged them all, like so many little pups with muzzles on. The Evening Journal's dramatic de- partment's work is "raw" at times. The Journal prints once weekly a horse racing chart. The originator of the chart, who is the critic-solicitor of that paper, has had as many as ten vaudeville acts on his hands as their press agent at one time. Miss Tanguay has been his star boarder, most likely paying him a weekly salary. Another of his stars has been Marcus Loew, who doubtlessly, also, pays him a sal- ary. Loew liked the Journal be- cause it didn't mind spreading the news around that he was a great the- atrical manager and a millionaire, made in "small time" vaudeville. Ar- ticles like these never yet scared an intending Investor. Th* Journal had William Morris hcokel, but fa'llng to make Mr. Morris a millionaire, he re- tired from the ring, badly bruised. It was Mr. Morris who, unknowing- ly, helped the Journal's critic-solicitor in his press agency and advertis'ng campaigns. The Journal man told vaudeville actors he would raise their salaries. Then, taking charge of the act (upon a percentage or salary) he auctioned it off between William Mor- ris (the "opposition" in vaudeville dur- ing those days), and the other faction. Morris got the most of the lemons through needing acts. When vaude- ville settled down with no opposition (occuring a short time ago), the Jour- nal's critic-solicitor's bus'ness fell off. He could promise, but couldn't de- liver. Vaudeville actors then discov- ered that "the opposition" had "boost- ed salaries." nothing else. The act which had been "boosted" also found out that their value decreased by Just one-half when the opposition ceased. Another paper is promising vaude- ville acts in return for a half page advertisement, a "column write- up during the week," a cartoon, and other emoluments to obtain the busi- ness. The price for the half page which carries these things with it has not been increased. In many cases, it has been lowered. It's a practice that results in no good to the paper em- ploying it. The "column write ups" (In the forms of a review), are laugh- ed at by agents and managers, the car- toon Is nothing more, and the same old finish is always there, if the act has "the goods," it is booked; if not, it is not. Much methods tend to destroy what little confidence may be.left In the- atrical papers. For ten years in Eng- land, Oswald Stoll never read a criti- cism In a theatrical paper. He was fooled once by an "advertisement-no- tice," and said he never would be fool- ed again. That one little thing, thought of no tmpcrtance likely by the English paper selling itself, may have brought all the English theatrical papers to the level they are now at. The great- est compliment we believe Variety ever received was when Mr. Stoll or- dered three years ago that Variktv.'s criticisms and New Act reports be filed and tabulate!, as done by the American managers and agents. And we would rather know that a manager or agent abroad believes he can nely upon Vaiukty. as truthful than all the money Miss Tanguay has offered to or would speni in Vahiktv.. The Collier's articles on newspapers are going to do much toward straight- ening up the dallies. Why can not the theatrical parers start to clean themselves up?