Customer Reviews

Minnesota Rag

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

ISBN 0394712412 - Great non-fiction is something I'm always looking for, especially about unknown or little-known stories. Freedom of the press in the U.S., much appreciated and much taken for granted, is a great subject! This book, however, not so much.

In 1924, Minnesota was the not-terribly-proud home of the Rip-saw, a tabloid-esque newspaper that just happened to offend people in power. This led to the passage of the Public Nuisance Law, a law that - clearly - violated the First Amendment by limiting what newspapers could print. For reasons beyond (modern day) comprehension, that law came in under the radar. Even local news didn't cover the passage. No one much cared, or realized, that freedom of the press in Minnesota had been stifled until 1927. That year, the Saturday Press, published by Jay Near and Howard Guilford, came under fire. By the time the story played out, Bertie McCormick of the Chicago Tribune had taken up the cause of the Saturday Press and the case for freedom of the press was on its way, in a protracted legal battle, to the United States Supreme Court.

This is a fantastic and important story, peopled by interesting characters and happening during one of the country's most violent but mythologized eras. Prohibition, gangsters, shootings in the streets. Politicians, a wealthy and well-known publishing family, the spiritual parents of tabloids. A defining moment in the freedoms of America. And the book is boring. Boring! How is that possible!? The blame there, obviously, goes to author Fred W. Friendly. Never before have I read a book so full of potential that was so boring I could've stopped reading at any point. The book is only 180 pages long, with 63 pages of acknowledgments, bibliography, source notes, court records and an index. The brevity of the book would make it seem improbable that there would be time to be dull, but Friendly found it.

As a last note, if you're going to buy a copy, I'd avoid the 1981 paperback edition from Vintage Books / Random House - the spine's glue on several copies has dried out and the covers fall off. Personally, I'm going to give Newspapers on the Minnesota Frontier a whirl and see if that's better.

- AnnaLovesBooks

Minnesota Rag, by Fred W. Friendly

Fred W. Friendly spent his life in journalism as a reporter, editor, teacher, and author. He worked with Edward R. Murrow on many distinguished news programs. This is the story about the Duluth `Rip-saw' and other muckraking journals that told about the connection of Duluth officials to the local underworld (p.4). Local newspapers were more interested with advertising than local corruption. Duluth was very important for its iron ore from the Mesabi Range (p.5). Chapter 1 describes the area and the times. Duluth was a company town owned by the steel and railroad companies. The wealthy lived in Victorian mansions. The articles in `Rip-saw' were popular (p.8). Prohibition meant liquor operators needed police protection and payoffs to politicians (p.9). Did `Rip-saw' sell advertising to eliminate unfavorable news items (p.12)? [Don't most newspapers today do this?] One of the important families, Pierce Butler, was appointed to the US Supreme Court (p.12).

In October 1924 Morrison's paper claimed that a candidate for office suffered from a venereal disease, allowed "blind pigs" and slot machines (p.17). Publisher John L. Morrison admitted the information was "malicious and false" (p.20). Politicians and the major newspaper association cooperated to pass a "gag law" (p.21). [To prevent competition?] A single judge could stop publication forever (p.22)! Its passage was not mentioned in the newspapers. In April 1926 articles led to an injunction (p.24). Morrison left the state for health reasons, and died from a brain clot. The `Rip-saw' ceased publication (p.27). Chapter 3 tells about the hundreds of weekly scandal sheets published in the 1920s. Minneapolis was a crossroads for Canadian whiskey. Corruption provided stories omitted from respectable newspapers, such as the sexual adventures of the upper crust (p.32).

When Guilford tried to expose the links between the police and gambling some gangsters tried to kill him. Chapter 4 starts by telling how an industry association used gangsters for price fixing. The police chief banned the `Saturday Press' in Minneapolis as obscene (p.44). County Attorney Floyd Olson asked for a permanent ban (p.51). Prominent attorney Thomas Latimer claimed the law was in violation of the state constitution. "There is no constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is true" (p.62)! The ACLU defended Near over this "prior restraint" (p.63). Minnesota newspapers supported the Public Nuisance Law (p.64). `Chicago Tribune' publisher Robert McCormick supported the appeal to the US Supreme Court (p.90).

Chapter 8 describes the politics and personalities of the US Supreme Court. Chapter 9 tells of the arguments in court. Chapter 10 discusses the vote to declare prior restraint unconstitutional and overturn the Minnesota law. A state legislature cannot alter a right in the US Constitution. Chief Justice Hughes read the decision (Chapter 11). Chapter 12 tells of the aftermath. Do people believe whatever is printed is true (p.157)? [Or what is said on talk radio?] McCormick said the weekly was suppressed for its true stories of official perfidy (p.160). Gangster tactics were used against another weekly (p.163). In 1934 Guilford ran for mayor of Minneapolis but gangsters shot him dead in the street (p.165). In 1935 Near died of "natural causes". Another muckraker was murdered in 1935 (p.166). So too Kasherman in 1945. The `Epilogue' tracks this precedent as it survived attacks from Presidents, legislatures, and the judiciary (p.173). Newspapers could report official actions without the fear of legal actions unless it involved "malice". The "Pentagon Papers" case was a beneficiary of the Near v. Minnesota decision.
The last pages have the `Acknowledgments', `Select Bibliography', `Source Notes', the Supreme Court decision, and the `Index'.