Shortly before that time, he had met Ralph Ingersoll. A graduate of Hotchkiss and Yale, Ingersoll had already been working for more than a decade near the top of the publishing world in Manhattan. He had joined The New Yorker in 1925 as one of Harold Ross’s first hires, and served as Ross’s right-hand man, doing all sorts of editorial chores, including trying to flim-flam writers by stalling on their payments. The New Yorker founder was exasperated in 1930 when Ingersoll defected to the camp of Ross’s great enemy, the Time Inc. president Henry Luce, who made Ingersoll a top editor at Fortune.
During the Great Depression, Ingersoll underwent a personal conversion similar to Field’s; both men even saw the same psychoanalyst, Dr. Gregory Zilboorg. At Fortune, Ingersoll also came under the political tutelage of poet and leftist Archibald MacLeish, who extolled the virtues of the labor movement, socialism, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Through the mid-1930s, Ingersoll grew unhappy with running magazines for Luce, with whose right-wing ideas he increasingly disagreed. In 1937, Ingersoll took a month off and went to his country house in Lakeville, Connecticut, where he came up with the initial prospectus for what would become PM. Meanwhile, he continued to bounce around the Luce empire, and while working at Time he started trying to line up editorial talent for his secret project. It wasn’t hard. In an era when most newspapers and magazines were slashing their staffs, there was no shortage of writers and editors looking for work. Some ten thousand applicants poured in for fewer than 200 jobs.
Securing investors proved more difficult. Ingersoll, who was good at running publications, reckoned he would need about $5 million to launch PM. Eventually, he decided to launch with about $1.5 million, which he raised in fifteen shares of $100,000 each. Field bought two shares.
As editor, Ingersoll wanted others to know where his paper would stand. A phrase from his prospectus, boiled down a bit, became PM’s motto: “We are against people who push other people around.” With that call to arms, Ingersoll attempted to reinvent the daily newspaper. For one thing, PM would be beautiful. It was printed in a single-fold, stapled tabloid format. Stories would not jump from page to page, and color ink would break up the traditional gray columns of type. As in Time, stories would be organized into departments. Ingersoll insisted on high-quality paper and inks, because he wanted the photos to pop from the newsstand murk. In a snub to the Fortune set, there would be no stock tables.
PM would be editorially innovative, too. Reporters chose their own topics and wrote in their own styles. Articles were edited lightly, if at all, in part as a matter of principle and in part out of necessity—Ingersoll acknowledged that he never managed to hire enough staff.
His most radical step was to shun advertising. (This was unusual, but not entirely unprecedented. A few other papers had attempted to survive on circulation alone—notably a Chicago-based paper called Day Book, which had been founded before World War I by E. W. Scripps and lasted about six years.) The business model for the big-city daily paper was, and still is, based on the dual-revenue stream: income from both advertising and circulation. Despite many misgivings, all publishers had come to rely on ads, and most tried to ensure that their products were congenial environments for bringing together advertisers and consumers.
Ingersoll’s views on advertising traced back to his old boss at The New Yorker. Like Harold Ross, Ingersoll believed that advertising corrupted the English language and threatened the independence of journalists by giving them a financial master. In PM, Ingersoll proudly dispensed with seasonal features urging women to buy entire new wardrobes, and proudly attacked wartime contractors without worrying about retaliation from big advertisers like General Motors or Ford.

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