Harrison's Reports (1946)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION TWO Page 156 A HARRISON'S REPORTS Vol. XXVIII SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1946 ' No. 39 JOE BREEN'S TEMPER Late in June, this year, I received from Joe Breen, Pre duction Code Administrator, at Hollywood, a letter denying certain statements that I made regarding him in the edi' torial, "Howard Hughes versus Eric Johnston," which was printed in the May 11 issue of Harrison's Reports. Because the letter is abusive, I did not want to take advantage of Breen by printing it and, on July 1, I wrote him partly as follows: "You wrote your June 27 letter to me in anger, and mailed it before giving yourself a chance to cool off and reconsider. For this reason I am not going to take advantage of you and I have decided to give you a chance to withdraw your request that I publish it in Harrison's Reports. . . ." I informed Mr. Breen that I would, of course, publish it if he insisted, but that I could not do so immediately because of the fact that the interpretation of the Federal Statutory Court's decision in the New York Anti-Trust case held priority. I told him, however, that I considered this circumstance fortunate in that he was going to England and it would give him time to reconsider the matter. Besides, I said that I would want him to be back in the United States when I printed his letter and gave him my reply, because I wanted him to know what I had written. I emphasized the fact that, in giving him a chance to reconsider his demand, I was doing a favor, not to myself, but to him, for I felt that he was doing himself no honor by resorting to abuse. Several weeks have passed since the day he returned from England to the United States and, since he has not yet answered my letter telling me whether he desires to withdraw his demand that I publish his letter or not, I am proceeding to publish it, for I don't want to let this matter be closed by default. In spite of the fact that Mr. Breen saw fit to resort to personal abuse, I assure you that I shall not reply in kind, not only because I feel that abuse settles no problems, but also because I respect the feelings of those who read Harrison's Reports. Just because Joe Breen has seen fit to resort to personal abuse and insult is no reason why I should stoop to his tactics. I shall present my facts to you in a dignified manner and let you, as jurors, determine whether my facts are unassailable or not. All I want you to do is to criticize me severely if you find my facts inadequate, but if you find them adequate and justified I hope you will be lenient toward Mr. Breen. Had he had less false pride and more courage, he would have acknowledged his error and the matter would have been forgotten. Because of the fact that Breen's letter is very long, I shall publish it piecemeal, printing each topic and discussing it separately, so that my facts may not appear a mile away from the topic discussed. THE LETTER Dear Pete : I have just finished reading your editorial blast in the May 11th issue of Harrison's Reports, and I am sending this to tell you that I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself. How in the name of heaven, anyone making the slightest pretense to editorial integrity could launch upon such an attack without first getting the facts, is simply beyond my comprehension. For example: Most of your editorial has to do with film advertising. You go to great lengths to set forth your critical viewpoint on the subject and then proceed to charge me with some kind of responsibility for such advertising. The fact of the matter is that I have no more responsibility for film advertising than you have. It is the Advertising Advisory Council, with headquarters in New York, which, for the organized industry, has the responsibility for film advertising, and a gentleman named Gordon White is the Administrator of the Advertising Code. In my work, I have not now, and I never had, any responsibility, directly or indirectly, for film advertising, of any kind. I have had nothing whatever to do, in any way, with the advertising of "THE OUTLAW," or "GILD A," which you specifically refer to in your editorial. And, I have never laid eyes on the press book for "STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY," for which you seek to castigate me. What kind of journalistic ethics is it that presumes to lecture anybody on the grounds of honesty and fair dealing, and, at the same time, makes not the slightest effort to first establish the facts? In your case this kind of loose writing is even more reprehensible, because you ought to know better. As further evidence of your type of editorializing, you publish a quote from an article in the April 2nd issue of DAILY VARIETY. I direct your attention to the fact that nowhere in your editorial is there to be found any qualifying reference to this quote from VARIETY. You do not say, for example, as would most editorial writers, that "if the VARIETY story is correct," or, "if the VARIETY story accurately represents the situation," etc. You just accept the story as correct, and proceed on this basis, again to attack me. Now, the fact of the matter is that, so far as I am concerned, the VARIETY story is false and, consequently, all your flip talk about me and what I am supposed to have said to the producers, is just the cheapest kind of twaddle. You cannot escape your responsibility for this kind of writing by arguing that VARIETY published the story and that you thus felt justified in using it as a basis for your attack on me. Any editor worth his salt would have first checked on the story in order to make certain that it was correct and accurate — but not you! You did not hesitate to accept the false story and use it to impugn my honesty, and characterize me as a crook. Again, I say, what kind of responsible journalism is this? MY REPLY (1) The April 2 Daily Variety news item, which I took as a "springboard" for that part of my editorial that dealt with Mr. Breen, was headed by the following headline: "Clean Ads, Pix Demanded — Breen Tells Prods to Keep Code Spirit," and the first paragraph read, "Sharp warning that they'll have to watch their step in the matter of observance of the Johnston office code has been given producers and studio publicists by Joe Breen." (2) Boxoffice, in a Hollywood dispatch, published in the April 6 issue, had this to say on the same subject: "Continuing the series of studio meetings which are aimed toward bringing a more complete understanding of the industry's self-regulation program to all Hollywood picture-makers, Joseph I. Breen, production code administrator, has held sessions with producers on all major lots except Warners and RKO Radio. Spokesmen said Breen would hold discussions at those studios within the next few days. "Breen, who refers to his discussions as 'refresher courses,' has been emphasizing the industry's tendency to observe the strict letter of the code, but not the spirit, and has — in certain instances — been 'cutting corners' in the matter of advertising and poster arts. "The code administrator pointed out 'the need in these changing times of the greatest possible care in order that pictures may not be seized upon by critical censorship boards ... as an excuse for curtailing the freedom of the screen.' "