New York Herald var en New York-baserad tidning, som gavs ut åren 1835 till 1924 . Den grundades av James Gordon Bennett den äldre och drevs sedan av sonen James Gordon Bennett den yngre. Under denne blev tidningen berömd för att ha finansierat två av Henry Morton Stanleys expeditioner i Afrika bl.a den då han letade efter och den 10 November 1871 träffade på dr Livingstone i det mörkaste Afrika.
1924 (1920) blev den uppköpt av New-York Tribune och integrerad in i New York Herald Tribune.
Henry Fords eget förlag gav ut en tidning (Dearborn Independent) och bok som bl.a. i ett kapitel berörde NY Heralds intressanta historia.
Länk till hela berättelsen
This is the story of a boycott which lasted over a number of years; it is only one of numerous stories of the same kind which can be told of America. There have been even more outstanding cases since this one, but it dates back to the dawn of Jewish ambitions and power in the United States, and it is the first of the great battles which Jewry waged, successfully, to snuff out the independent Press.
It concerns the long defunct "New York Herald," one newspaper to remain independent of Jewish influence in New York. The Herald enjoyed an existence of 90 years, which was terminated in 1920 by the inevitable amalgamation. It performed great feats in the world of news-gathering. It sent Henry M. Stanley to Africa to find Livingstone. It backed the Jeannette expedition to the Arctic regions. It was largely instrumental in having the first Atlantic cables laid. Its reputations among newspaper men was that neither its news nor its editorial columns could be bought or influenced. But perhaps its greatest feat was the maintenance during many years of its journalistic independence against the combined attack of New York Jewry. Its proprietor, the late James Gordon Bennett, a great American citizen famed for many helpful activities, had always maintained a friendly attitude toward the Jews of his city. He apparently harbored no prejudices against them. Certainly he never deliberately antagonized them. But he was resolved upon preserving the honor of independent journalism. He never bent to the policy that the advertisers had something to say about the editorial policy of the paper, either as to influencing it for publication or suppression. In Bennett's time the American Press was in the majority free. Today it is entirely Jewish controlled. This control is variously exercised, sometimes resting only on the owners' sense of expediency. But the control is there, and for the moment it is absolute. Fifty years ago there were many more newspapers in New York than there are today, since then amalgamation has reduced the competition to a select few who do not compete. This development has been the same in other countries, particularly Great Britain.
EDITOR'S NOTE: *Following the rise of the "popular" syndicated "columnist" since 1920, the word is now "smear," it is specially prominent in political-press affairs.
Bennett's Herald, a three cent newspaper, enjoyed the highest prestige and was the most desirable advertising medium due to the class of its circulation. At that time the Jewish population of New York was less than one-third of what it is today, but there was much wealth represented in it.
Now, what every newspaper man knows is this: most Jewish leaders are always interested either in getting a story published or getting it suppressed. There is no class of people who read the public press with so careful an eye to their own affairs as do the Jews. The Herald simply adopted the policy from the beginning of this form of harassment that it was not to be permitted to sway the Herald from its duty as a public informant. And this policy had a reflex advantage for the other newspapers in the city.
When a scandal occurred in Jewish circles (and at the turn of the century growing Jewish influence in America produced many) influential Jews would swarm into the editorial offices to arrange for the suppression of the story. But the editors knew that the Herald would not suppress anything for anybody. What was the use of one paper suppressing if the others would not? So editors would say: We would be very glad to suppress this story, but the Herald will use it, so we'll have to do the same in self-protection. However, if you can get the Herald to suppress it, we will gladly do so, too.
But the Herald never succumbed, neither pressure of influence nor promise of business nor threats of loss availed. It printed the news.
There was a certain Jewish banker who periodically demanded that Bennett discharge the Herald's financial editor. The banker was in the business of disposing of Mexican bonds at a time when such bonds were least secure. Once when an unusually large number of bonds were to be unloaded on unsuspecting Americans, the Herald published the story of an impending Mexican revolution, which presently ensued. The banker frothed at the mouth and moved every influence he could to change the Herald's financial staff, but was not able to effect the change even of an office boy.
Once when a shocking scandal involved a member of a prominent family, Bennett refused to suppress it, arguing that if the episode had occurred in a family of any other race it would be published regardless of the prominence of the figures involved. The Jews of Philadelphia secured suppression there, but because of Bennett's unflinching stand there was no suppression in New York.
A newspaper is a business proposition. There are some matters it cannot touch without putting itself in peril of becoming a defunct concern. This is especially true since newspapers no longer receive their main support from the public but from the advertisers. The money the reader gives for the paper scarcely suffices to pay for the amount of white paper he receives. In this way, advertisers cannot be disregarded any more than the paper mills can be. As the most extensive advertisers in New York were, and are, the department stores, and as most department stores were, and are, owned by Jews, it comes logically that Jews often influence the news policies of the papers with whom they deal.
At this time, it had always been the burning ambition of the Jews to elect a Jewish Mayor of New York. They selected a time when the leading parties were disrupted to push forward their choice. The method they adopted was characteristic. They reasoned that the newspapers would not dare to refuse the dictum of the combined department store owners, so they drew up a "strictly confidential" letter which they sent to the owners of the New York newspapers, demanding support for the Jewish mayoralty candidate. The newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days they debated how to act. All remained silent. The editors of the Herald cabled the news to Bennett who was abroad. Then it was that Bennett exhibited that boldness and directness of judgment which characterized him. He cabled back, "Print the letter." It was printed in the Herald, the arrogance of the Jewish advertisers was exposed, and non-Jewish New York breathed easier and applauded the action.
The Herald explained frankly that it could not support a candidate of private interests, because it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and against the man who dared to expose their game.
They had not liked Bennett for a long time, anyway. The Herald was the real "society paper" of New York, but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of newly-rich Jews to break into the Herald's society columns are some of the best that are told by old newspaper men.
The whole "war" culminated in a contention which arose between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German-Jew whose business house was known under the name of "R. H. Macy and Company," Macy being the Scotsman who built up the business and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Straus was something of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that Bennett's failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led to ill-feeling. A long newspaper-war ensued, the subject of which was the pasteurization of milk, a stupid discussion which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.*
The Jews, of course, took Straus' side. Jewish speakers made the welkin ring with laudation of Nathan Straus and maledictions upon James Bennett. Bennett was pictured in the most vile business of "persecuting" a noble Jew. It went so far that the Jews were able to put resolutions through the Board of Aldermen.
Long since, of course, Straus, a very heavy advertiser, had withdrawn every dollar's worth of his business from the Herald. And now the combined and powerful elements of New York Jewry gathered to deal a staggering blow at Bennett. The Jewish policy of "Dominate or Destroy" was at stake, and Jewry declared war.
EDITOR'S NOTE: It is significant that, in the long years since this first "food war," the business of "processing" and "substituting" pure foods, messing about with natural food-stuffs, has developed into a world wide business; mostly controlled by Jews.
As one man, the Jewish advertisers withdrew their advertisements. Their assigned reason was that the Herald was showing animosity against the Jews. The real purpose of their action was to crush an American newspaper owner who dared to be independent of them.
forts tryck länk
1924 (1920) blev den uppköpt av New-York Tribune och integrerad in i New York Herald Tribune.
Henry Fords eget förlag gav ut en tidning (Dearborn Independent) och bok som bl.a. i ett kapitel berörde NY Heralds intressanta historia.
Länk till hela berättelsen
This is the story of a boycott which lasted over a number of years; it is only one of numerous stories of the same kind which can be told of America. There have been even more outstanding cases since this one, but it dates back to the dawn of Jewish ambitions and power in the United States, and it is the first of the great battles which Jewry waged, successfully, to snuff out the independent Press.
It concerns the long defunct "New York Herald," one newspaper to remain independent of Jewish influence in New York. The Herald enjoyed an existence of 90 years, which was terminated in 1920 by the inevitable amalgamation. It performed great feats in the world of news-gathering. It sent Henry M. Stanley to Africa to find Livingstone. It backed the Jeannette expedition to the Arctic regions. It was largely instrumental in having the first Atlantic cables laid. Its reputations among newspaper men was that neither its news nor its editorial columns could be bought or influenced. But perhaps its greatest feat was the maintenance during many years of its journalistic independence against the combined attack of New York Jewry. Its proprietor, the late James Gordon Bennett, a great American citizen famed for many helpful activities, had always maintained a friendly attitude toward the Jews of his city. He apparently harbored no prejudices against them. Certainly he never deliberately antagonized them. But he was resolved upon preserving the honor of independent journalism. He never bent to the policy that the advertisers had something to say about the editorial policy of the paper, either as to influencing it for publication or suppression. In Bennett's time the American Press was in the majority free. Today it is entirely Jewish controlled. This control is variously exercised, sometimes resting only on the owners' sense of expediency. But the control is there, and for the moment it is absolute. Fifty years ago there were many more newspapers in New York than there are today, since then amalgamation has reduced the competition to a select few who do not compete. This development has been the same in other countries, particularly Great Britain.
EDITOR'S NOTE: *Following the rise of the "popular" syndicated "columnist" since 1920, the word is now "smear," it is specially prominent in political-press affairs.
Bennett's Herald, a three cent newspaper, enjoyed the highest prestige and was the most desirable advertising medium due to the class of its circulation. At that time the Jewish population of New York was less than one-third of what it is today, but there was much wealth represented in it.
Now, what every newspaper man knows is this: most Jewish leaders are always interested either in getting a story published or getting it suppressed. There is no class of people who read the public press with so careful an eye to their own affairs as do the Jews. The Herald simply adopted the policy from the beginning of this form of harassment that it was not to be permitted to sway the Herald from its duty as a public informant. And this policy had a reflex advantage for the other newspapers in the city.
When a scandal occurred in Jewish circles (and at the turn of the century growing Jewish influence in America produced many) influential Jews would swarm into the editorial offices to arrange for the suppression of the story. But the editors knew that the Herald would not suppress anything for anybody. What was the use of one paper suppressing if the others would not? So editors would say: We would be very glad to suppress this story, but the Herald will use it, so we'll have to do the same in self-protection. However, if you can get the Herald to suppress it, we will gladly do so, too.
But the Herald never succumbed, neither pressure of influence nor promise of business nor threats of loss availed. It printed the news.
There was a certain Jewish banker who periodically demanded that Bennett discharge the Herald's financial editor. The banker was in the business of disposing of Mexican bonds at a time when such bonds were least secure. Once when an unusually large number of bonds were to be unloaded on unsuspecting Americans, the Herald published the story of an impending Mexican revolution, which presently ensued. The banker frothed at the mouth and moved every influence he could to change the Herald's financial staff, but was not able to effect the change even of an office boy.
Once when a shocking scandal involved a member of a prominent family, Bennett refused to suppress it, arguing that if the episode had occurred in a family of any other race it would be published regardless of the prominence of the figures involved. The Jews of Philadelphia secured suppression there, but because of Bennett's unflinching stand there was no suppression in New York.
A newspaper is a business proposition. There are some matters it cannot touch without putting itself in peril of becoming a defunct concern. This is especially true since newspapers no longer receive their main support from the public but from the advertisers. The money the reader gives for the paper scarcely suffices to pay for the amount of white paper he receives. In this way, advertisers cannot be disregarded any more than the paper mills can be. As the most extensive advertisers in New York were, and are, the department stores, and as most department stores were, and are, owned by Jews, it comes logically that Jews often influence the news policies of the papers with whom they deal.
At this time, it had always been the burning ambition of the Jews to elect a Jewish Mayor of New York. They selected a time when the leading parties were disrupted to push forward their choice. The method they adopted was characteristic. They reasoned that the newspapers would not dare to refuse the dictum of the combined department store owners, so they drew up a "strictly confidential" letter which they sent to the owners of the New York newspapers, demanding support for the Jewish mayoralty candidate. The newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days they debated how to act. All remained silent. The editors of the Herald cabled the news to Bennett who was abroad. Then it was that Bennett exhibited that boldness and directness of judgment which characterized him. He cabled back, "Print the letter." It was printed in the Herald, the arrogance of the Jewish advertisers was exposed, and non-Jewish New York breathed easier and applauded the action.
The Herald explained frankly that it could not support a candidate of private interests, because it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and against the man who dared to expose their game.
They had not liked Bennett for a long time, anyway. The Herald was the real "society paper" of New York, but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of newly-rich Jews to break into the Herald's society columns are some of the best that are told by old newspaper men.
The whole "war" culminated in a contention which arose between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German-Jew whose business house was known under the name of "R. H. Macy and Company," Macy being the Scotsman who built up the business and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Straus was something of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that Bennett's failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led to ill-feeling. A long newspaper-war ensued, the subject of which was the pasteurization of milk, a stupid discussion which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.*
The Jews, of course, took Straus' side. Jewish speakers made the welkin ring with laudation of Nathan Straus and maledictions upon James Bennett. Bennett was pictured in the most vile business of "persecuting" a noble Jew. It went so far that the Jews were able to put resolutions through the Board of Aldermen.
Long since, of course, Straus, a very heavy advertiser, had withdrawn every dollar's worth of his business from the Herald. And now the combined and powerful elements of New York Jewry gathered to deal a staggering blow at Bennett. The Jewish policy of "Dominate or Destroy" was at stake, and Jewry declared war.
EDITOR'S NOTE: It is significant that, in the long years since this first "food war," the business of "processing" and "substituting" pure foods, messing about with natural food-stuffs, has developed into a world wide business; mostly controlled by Jews.
As one man, the Jewish advertisers withdrew their advertisements. Their assigned reason was that the Herald was showing animosity against the Jews. The real purpose of their action was to crush an American newspaper owner who dared to be independent of them.
forts tryck länk
