
For months, the journalism world had been abuzz with the rumor that Ralph Ingersoll, the editorial genius behind Time, Fortune, and Life, was leaving Henry Luce to start his own publication. Supposedly, it was going to be a daily newspaper in New York City.
Finally, on the morning of June 18, 1940, Ingersoll was poised to unveil what he called not only a new newspaper, but a new kind of paper—a smart, ad-free, unabashedly liberal, writer’s paper, one with the wit of a magazine and the pace of a daily. It was to be called PM, and after many months of fundraising, designing, and fretting, it was ready.
Then, the fire department showed up.
During the frenzy to prepare the first edition, smoke began wisping through the PM newsroom near the corner of Sixth Avenue and Bergen Street in Brooklyn. While firefighters tromped around looking for the source (it turned out to be a minor blaze, most likely from an errant cigarette), Ingersoll and the staff soldiered on and got the paper out.
Because there were no ads, PM had to be priced higher than the other dozen or so dailies in the city. Still, it had attracted more than 150,000 charter subscribers, and vendors at newsstands across the city were waiting. Months of pre-launch hype in other publications ensured that PM would not be overlooked; as the trucks rolled out, customers swarmed them, forcing the drivers to stop and sell copies out the back. People were offering quarters for a paper priced at a nickel. By day’s end, the entire press run—some 450,000 copies—was gone.
The only problem was that the charter subscribers, the ones who were going to sustain the paper until it was profitable, never got copies of that first edition. The PM circulation manager lost the postcards with their names and addresses. This was typical of the way things went at PM. During the eight years it was published, it was a hell of a newspaper but a disaster as a business.
It was an appropriately uneven beginning for a daily with big ambitions that blazed an important, if not widely acknowledged, trail across American journalism, then burned out as quickly as it came. Today’s new-media startups will no doubt recognize in PM’s story the money woes, the chaotic business practices, the struggle to stay alive and deliver a new kind of journalism. Some, too, will identify with its anticorporate ideology. But the real takeaway for our times is PM’s attempt, however flawed, to produce a publication that serves the interests of people who are closer to the bottom than the top in terms of power and influence, the proverbial little guy. That attempt is what made PM great, and worth remembering at a time when the distance between the top and the bottom is as great as it’s ever been.
Marshall Field III was an unlikely backer for an experimental left-wing publication. Born in Chicago, he was a grandson of the original Marshall Field, who had made a fortune with his eponymous department store. In the winter of 1905/06, his father committed suicide and his grandfather died, leaving the boy half of a $75 million estate. After serving in the First Illinois Cavalry during World War I (he was, after all, an accomplished polo player), Field plunged into a life of lavish estates, posh yachts, and quail hunts. When the Depression hit, Field experienced some kind of awakening. Divorced from his second wife, he began psychoanalysis in 1934 and emerged a more mature person with a newfound social conscience. Field became, at mid-life, a liberal. He dissolved his Wall Street investment company and set up the Field Foundation to start giving away his money.

I hope Daly didn't write the brainless headline for this story, because in spite of his (and CJR's) tendency to celebrate this failed rich man's idea of what 'the 99%' would relate to, Daly does include some reasons why PM was as stupid as 'smart' urban voices can often be. ('The 99%' were reading The Daily News, I expect, just as poor people were listening to the Grand Ole Opry and not Woody Guthrie, in those days.) Stupid in the sense Orwell meant when he said that there were some things only intellectuals could believe - no ordinary person could be so stupid.
The stain of pro-Stalinism that colored PM is acknowledged in passing, but at least acknowledged. The radical-chic silliness of men like Field and Ingersoll is noted, though little is made of it. (The item about these guys seeing the same psychiatrist - a sure sign that their 'left' politics were a working out of what we would today called, uh, 'issues' - is priceless.) I also appreciated the very rare observation that the left-wing witch-hunting that went on during the war years rehearsed the right-wing variety that followed. This is still something orthodox academics and journalists refuse to investigate. Bob Taft and other Republicans were routinely labeled pro-Nazi in those days, without supposedly fair-minded liberals turning a hair, but when lefties started getting the same treatment as Stalin started exporting his terror, panties bunched up all over the republic of letters. It wasn't some right-winger, but the independent radical Dwight Macdonald who had the most fun with the way PM's staffers, Lerner in particular, demonized 'little guys' while pretending to be on their side. Look up the editorial cartoons by Dr. Seuss from those days. His hate-mongering against ordinary Germans makes the most extreme anti-Moslem elements in our chattering classes look tame.
The romanticism attached to PM, I.F. Stone, and other such old lefties obscures the failures of their careers. They were too mesmerized by their emotional political beliefs to see the world plain. The Soviet experiment collapsed after great cost in human lives. FDR's New Deal legacy still lives, but is under more ferocious attack than ever since that era. The most powerful ideas in the world today are Asian consumerist capitalism and fundamentalist Islam - not at all what 'progressives' thought the world would be like in the 21st century.
CJR should run a story - but I doubt it will, given the presence of Victor Navasky in its management - on a petition signed by a huge number of writers, artists, and journalists around the time PM, with all its attendent illusions, was being founded. The petition ridiculed the very idea, spread by those wicked right-wingers, that the Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany could ever become allied. A roster of still-illustrious names, it was published in The Nation on the week that the Hitler-Stalin pact was signed. As a metaphor for what 'progressives' are really fighting for, as opposed to what they think they are fighting for, you could hardly find better.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 12:48 PM
Very nice piece. However, my basic question remains "where is our Marshall Field?" Until at least one such angel donor appears, progressive metro news weeklies like mine can never hope to compete head-to-head with traditional news publications in our own markets - let alone go daily or scale up to the national level. Much more to say on this topic, but I'll demur for the moment.
Jason Pramas
Editor/Publisher
Open Media Boston
www.openmediaboston.org
#2 Posted by Jason Pramas, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 06:13 PM
Your modern day "Marshall Field" is George Soros - the richest man in Manhattan - who's palatial residence curiously escaped the ire of the "99%" during their "March on Millionaires" field trip from the OWS Hissy Fit.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 08:48 PM
Well I can assure padikiller that contemporary foundations - whatever their general political direction - are fully professionalized enterprises run by program officers within established areas of interest. One cannot just walk in, proclaim political agreement with the leader or leaders of the foundation, and walk out with carts full of cash. In any case, only a small percentage of American foundations fund news media production in the US proper. Of those, a tiny number would currently consider funding a publication like mine specifically on account of our progressive editorial stance - and some of those only fund within their city or region, further limiting the field. Soros' constellation of foundations would not be among them based on my most recent review of their funding initiatives.
#4 Posted by Jason Pramas, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 10:06 PM
Alas, there are not many Marshal Fields. In fact, it bears remembering: Field himself got cold feet and closed his wallet. All of which underscores the deeper point -- that PM never found a sustainable business model.
That search continues, and I wish all the seekers well.
#5 Posted by Chris Daly, CJR on Thu 26 Jan 2012 at 10:36 AM
What was The Guardian newspaper, published in NY? Chopped liver? It was also a wonderous paper, covering national and global news with a multi-ethnic staff of reporters. Published from 1948-1992. Probably more of the 99% among its readership than PM...
#6 Posted by Lisa Vives, CJR on Thu 26 Jan 2012 at 12:26 PM
My Dad had me pick up PM everyday at the newsstand. He also had me buy The Sun and The World-Telegram ("and make sure you get the Wall Street Final" edition to have the closing prices, not the 2:00PM ticker). PM had the best maps of the war situation...I still remember them.
#7 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Wed 28 Mar 2012 at 11:10 PM
I did not write the headline.
#8 Posted by Chris Daly , CJR on Mon 7 Jan 2013 at 05:26 PM