Instead, Ingersoll planned to charge the top rate for subscriptions and let his readers support the paper. At first, PM went through some wild swings in circulation. From an early high of about 400,000, the demand settled to about 150,000 copies a day—which would have been fine, except that Ingersoll had calculated that his break-even point was about 200,000. He called his goal of 250,000 readers “a substantial figure, but still no more than the weakest of the eight competing New York dailies.” Within months, the initial backers began to panic. Just in time, Field stepped in and bought out all the other investors for about twenty cents on the dollar, emerging as the sole owner for the bargain price of a little over half a million dollars.
With Field’s money and Ingersoll’s ideas, PM made quite a splash. Reporters like I.F. Stone wrote hard-hitting exposés, revealing, among other things, how US companies shipped oil to Hitler’s Germany through Franco’s Spain. The paper also reported that the Red Cross segregated blood donations by race, and it took on big business, isolationist Charles Lindbergh, and the Catholic Church. Cartoonists like Theodor Geisel (later known as Dr. Seuss) lampooned bullies, and Hodding Carter critiqued the press, while Max Lerner handled most of the editorials. Margaret Bourke-White and Weegee shot photos, and Heywood Broun, Ernest Hemingway, Ben Hecht, and Dorothy Parker all contributed articles.
One of PM’s trademarks was its extensive coverage of the labor movement. After making historic breakthroughs in the 1930s, the cio unions in steel, auto, coal, and other heavy industries became important to the war effort. PM’s labor desk got a full page to fill every day, and the paper covered union elections as if they were congressional races.
But content wasn’t all hard news and big ideas. While foregoing spreads on the latest fashions, PM told its readers how to look good in clothes they already owned. Editors also summarized the contents of ads that department stores ran in other newspapers, so readers would not miss out on sales. And PM’s use of photos, graphics, color, and maps would not be equaled until the launch of USA Today in 1982.
The paper was unabashed about what it did and did not support. “PM’s own staff… embraced many shades of political opinion, all vehement,” wrote The New Yorker’s Wolcott Gibbs, but some articles of faith were absolute: the paper was consistently pro-FDR, pro-labor, pro-democracy. And from its earliest days, PM had one paramount enemy: Adolf Hitler. Ingersoll and most of his writers shared the view that Hitler was an unprecedented evil. From that premise, they reached two tragic conclusions. One was that any ally in the fight against Hitler was welcome. Carried to an extreme, this caused most PMers, and many others on the left, to minimize or even deny the brutality and mass killings carried out by America’s ally in Moscow, Joseph Stalin. (This pro-Soviet bent would come back to haunt many PM contributors during the 1950s.)
The other conclusion was that because Hitler was so dangerous, any tactic in opposing him was acceptable. Indeed, years before Joe McCarthy’s Red Scare, PM’s writers led a disturbingly similar witchhunt for supporters of Hitler, using many of the same deplorable tactics: the big accusation based on little evidence; guilt by association; the equation of dissent with treason; disregard for civil liberties; demands that suspects rat out friends and acquaintences. They were running a school for scoundrels.
Over the years, the financial losses at PM mounted, reaching $25,000 a day. For all Ingersoll’s planning, PM was never really on solid ground. It was undercapitalized (“Between the high resolve to create a new kind of newspaper and reality, there was a gap ten million dollars wide,” Ingersoll wrote later), and never managed to hire as many reporters, editors, and photographers as Ingersoll would have liked. It was also overpriced, so it never really caught on among the city’s blue-collar readers whose issues it trumpeted. Though PM could be for the working class, it would never really be of the working class.

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