Pulitzer was always invigorated by the idea of influencing public opinion. He thought the most effective way to accomplish this was to embark on journalistic crusades. A Pulitzer crusade involved weeks upon weeks of news stories and editorial comment devoted to one subject in order to bring about change. The drive to get Cleveland elected and the appeal to avoid war in Venezuela can both be classified as crusades. Even the World's irresponsible support of militarism against Spain in 1898 can be considered a crusade, although Pulitzer was compelled by his cynical, frenzied competition to take this stance.

The campaigns with the most journalistic integrity--those that might have won a prize for journalism, if one had existed--changed the public mood or exposed a previously unknown case of corruption. Four examples of crusades on typical topics follow: the bond issue of 1896, the impure milk scandal of the early 1880s, the Statue of Liberty fund drive and the Panama exposé in 1908.

The World's coverage of a proposed government bond issue provides a fine illustration of the newspaper at its activist best. In 1896, President Cleveland had floated government bond issues and had lost the country tremendous amounts of money because investors were not interested. When bonds failed to sell in the past, he had personally asked rich financiers to accept the bonds at a lower price. Pulitzer learned of another such bond issue which J.P. Morgan, James Woodward of Hanover Bank and James Stillman of National City Bank were seeking to buy at a discount rate. Forever distrustful of back room deals between government and the rich, he ordered the World staff to work on a solution. ³¹ 

The editors sent 10,370 telegrams to banks and financiers to secure guarantees that they would buy the bonds at their true market value. Over half of them replied, pledging $235 million even though $100 million worth of bonds were available. The following appeared on the World editorial page on January 3:

The above episode became an especially effective crusade, since within a few days the bond issue sold publicly to overwhelming demand. Pulitzer was caught in the awkward position of profiting $50,000 from a purchase he had intended as a public service. He kept the money.

While the rich were often a target of World crusades, the poor often benefitted from them. The numerous articles on milk prices during the early 1880s provides an example of how Pulitzer, an immensely successful beneficiary of the capitalist system, fought for the less fortunate. Milk dealers routinely blended water and solids like borax and soda into their prod uct. In 1884, a witness before the State Dairy Commissioner said the fraud was necessary to satisfy public demand for cheap milk. Children of the poor suffered most from the corruption, and many grew sick or died from vitamin deficiencies.

Pulitzer knew that someone was skimming profits; he ordered the World chase after the story. Reporters discovered that the price of milk doubled and sometimes tripled from the farmers' hands to those of the city distributors. The blame lay with the railroad companies, which charged higher rates to transport milk than other products of similar weight and bulk. The World pilloried those at fault: "Every family man who pays eight or ten cents a quart for milk has the satisfaction of knowing that a good portion of that sum is unjustly extorted by the railroad companies, and that . . . his children [are] stinted in their natural and most healthful food." ³³ 

The World editorial suggested that more regulation would permanently improve milk quality. Pulitzer's recommendation preceded the Food and Drug Administration by twenty years. He proved himself a visionary, advocating reforms for the poor even before the extravagant Gilded Age had ended.

The bond issue and milk crusades proved that Pulitzer amounted to more than a sensationalist. Unlike some of his competitors, notably Hearst, who bit into scandal with the feeble manner of a hyena picking over a carcass, Pulitzer never succumbed to cynicism. In most cases, he offered his readers hope by discovering problems and then devising solutions.

The World's drive to bring the Statue of Liberty to the U.S. became a literal monument to Pulitzer's idealism. An immigrant himself, Pulitzer identified with the cause and also knew the World's many foreign-born readers would approve of the paper's efforts. He had the World embark on a fundraiser to pay for the Statue pedestal. To incite enthusiasm, the editorial page lectured on the subject: "It would be an irrevocable disgrace to New York City and the American Republic to have France send us this splendid gift without our having provided even so much as a landing space for it. . . . The World is a people's paper, and it now appeals to the people to come forward and raise this money." ³⁴ 

The paper constantly lambasted the more wealthy members of society for not contributing to the fund. ³⁵  The final sum amounted to $101,091, and over 120,000 people had donated. These figures are a testament to the masses of people who gave what they could, and to the persistence of the World. A poem by Emma Lazarus won a contest in the newspaper and has adorned the pedestal ever since. Its first line, "Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor," could almost serve as a motto for the World newspaper, which provided many immigrants with their first taste of American journalism.

Later in his life, Pulitzer got drawn into another adventure which did not have the patriotic appearance of the Statue of Liberty fundraiser. President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to have the government sue the World proprietor for libel in 1908. The lawsuits came on the heels of a scathing editorial which said the President had knowingly lied about the Panamanian revolution. Roosevelt, who was pleased at the results of the revolution but privately unhappy that the U.S. had to send warships to encourage it, became incensed at the newspaper's impertinence. And he considered Joseph Pulitzer responsible.

The publisher, ironically, had no knowledge of the editorial when it first printed. He had been yachting off the coast of South Carolina when his aide read to him the headline, "WHO GOT THE MONEY?" The article charged that Roosevelt had known the $40 million disbursement for rights to the canal was not paid directly to the French government, as had been claimed. The World said a U.S. syndicate was involved in the deal, and some money had been given to American individuals with the President's knowledge. ³⁶ 

On December 15, Roosevelt decided to speak to Congress on the subject of libel. That day, he walked quietly and then publicly thrashed Pulitzer with his big stick: "It is . . . a high national duty to bring to justice this vilifier of the American people, this man who wantonly and wickedly and without one shadow of justification seeks to blacken the character of reputable private citizens and to convict the Government of his own country. . . ." ³⁷ 

Pulitzer must have been horrified, but he reacted bravely in the face of despair. He dictated an editorial which printed the next day: "Mr. Roosevelt is mistaken. He cannot muzzle The World. . . . [Congress] should make a thorough investigation of the whole Panama transaction, that the full truth may be known to the American people." ³⁸  After pursuing suits in federal and state courts, Roosevelt finally succeeded in indicting Pulitzer and other journalists for libel in the District of Columbia. The judgement was moot, since none of the offenders could be arrested unless they entered the city. The World trumpeted victory, proclaiming, "Mr. Roosevelt is an episode. The World is an institution." ³⁹ 

The Panamanian scandal was one crusade that Pulitzer did not win. The might of the government officials and financiers ensured that the path of clues became too treacherous for other journalists to follow. Pulitzer stood alone, loudly declaring that the government had wronged its people, but failed to bring public clamor for an investigation.

crusade.htm
author's bookmarks