Section 1:
Q: I'm talking to John Hawks Schmidt of Des
Moines [IA] on Saturday, June 12, 1999, at
his address. And again that's...
A: 2425 Terrace Road.
Q: John, you told this story a little bit in
the letter to me but maybe you could again
talk about how you happened to come to the
Register in 1948?
A: Well, because I was looking for a job and
it seemed like a better opportunity than some
of the others that came along. I had a job
offer from Watertown, South Dakota, as a
telegraph editor. And I thought, "Oh, that's
pretty good." But then, Howard Taylor who
was on the Chicago Tribune and also on the
Medill faculty seemed to have taken a liking
to me and he was a friend of Frank Eyerly and
he said, "Why don't you apply to the Register
and I'll send you a recommendation?" And so I
did and got an invitation to come out for an
interview early in March, 1948.
Q: And you applied as a copyreader, is that
right?
A: That is correct. I did not apply as a
reporter because I knew I would have made a
lousy one. I'm rather bashful and don't like
to call people up and pester them, so I knew
I was not made to be a reporter. And I
certainly like writing and editing and that
sort of thing.
Q: At the time what did you see as your
future, is that what you wanted to do is
copyreading?
A: Well, I saw that as the way of advancing
to a higher editorial position. I wasn't sure
that I would go any higher in the Register. I
thought maybe that would lead me to be
managing editor in Hastings, Nebraska, or
something like that.
Q: That's your cup of tea?
A: Editing would be my cup of tea, yes.
Editing and writing.
Q: Talk a little bit about Frank Eyerly, too.
You had, I guess the ups and downs that
everybody did at the Register during his
tenure. What was it starting out and then how
did that develop and evolve?
A: Frank was the one that asked me to come
out there, but as it turned out he was out of
town the day I was interviewed so Ken
MacDonald hired me. I always felt that Frank
thought I was worth keeping because during
those rather turbulent two years on the
Tribune he kept giving me the raises he
promised me. So I thought, "Well, maybe I
can't be all that bad." And then when the
time came that I just felt I couldn't stay
any longer, he moved me to the Register copy
desk. I don't know whether I'd hinted
something to him that I was ready to leave or
what, maybe the people on the Tribune, Parker
Mize and Russ Schoch, maybe they said they'd
like to see me out of there. I don't know.
But anyhow, he told me I could transfer to
the Register which was something not very
often done, I was told. A transfer from the
Tribune to the Register. And even going to
the same job, it was considered a promotion.
It was also five dollars a week better for
night work. In those days five dollars a week
was worth something. My starting salary was
$42.50 and I calculated that to be $300 in
today's money and that isn't even the poverty
level for a family of four. (laughs)
Q: You said that for the first 25 years that
you were at the Register and the Tribune you
were always worried about making ends meet.
A: I was, yes.
Q: Did you feel that you were getting a fair
wage?
A: Oh I think I was, yes. As I mentioned
during that manuscript when Howard Taylor
called me from the Tribune, the Chicago
Tribune, and said he had a $100 a week job
for me and I told him I was making $80, he
said don't bother to come because the cost of
living and commuting would eat that all up
and if they are paying you that much, they
must think you're all right. So I guess I was
making a fair wage.
Q: I'm going to check my tape while I let you
answer this question, but go ahead and answer
the question and I'll just be working here.
Was there any talk about unionization or
working as a guild at that time?
A: Not at that time, but there was in the, I
guess, early 1970s. In fact there were two
guild elections which they lost both times.
The first time I actually thought of joining
a guild and then the second time I had second
thoughts about it and voted against it. I
think it went down by maybe five votes or
something like that. (laughs)
Q: What was your apprehension? Why did vote
against it the second time?
A: Oh, I guess I had a feeling that maybe it
was not something that the editorial page
people should be involved in. It was more for
the reporters and copyreaders and that sort
of thing.
Q: And what was the distinction?
A: What?
Q: What was the distinction? Why would a
reporter be more wanting to be in a guild
than an editorialist? Why would it be more
appropriate?
A: Possibly because there were more of them
and it was a more, jobs had more turnovers
and that sort of thing. I think the editorial
writers were paid more on average than
reporters were.
Q: Was there a problem or did you see there
being an issue about working conditions there
for the reporters or in the newsroom?
A: I think maybe I saw a problem the first
time around. Several of them kind of
convinced me that things were not as good as
they ought to be. But I was not too closely
involved in that. No.
Q: What did you hear specifically?
A: I really don't remember what the specific
problem was--wages and hours. --
Section 2:
Q: And you also talked about the turbulent
two years that you were at the Tribune. Maybe
you could expand on that?
A: Well, I apparently just didn't seem to get
along with the people who were directly over
me and they didn't along with me. Maybe I had
too high expectations. I don't know. As I
said I was kind of poor at taking criticism
and they were kind of good at handing it out.
And it just seemed to me that they never gave
me any good stories to handle and always
saying that this headline is no good. That
changed on the Register, changed totally and
I can't believe that I changed that much
overnight so it must have been a personality
conflict of some kind.
Q: Can you remember any instances where there
was that point where you thought there were
some criticisms were perhaps unjustified or
nitpicking and that kind of thing?
A: I thought there was a lot of nitpicking,
yes. No doubt about that. Especially in the
headline writing. But I also objected to the
fact that somebody else got all the good
stories to handle and I didn't.
Q: You talked about the story where Frank
Eyerly would call up on a regular basis at
10:00 and read you the riot act, I don't what
the terms were that you used, but it was the
usual 10:00 chewing out. (laughs) What was
that all about?
A: Well, he got the first edition of the
paper delivered by taxi cab, had about a half
an hour to look it over and then he would
call up and give us about 45 minutes to make
changes for the second edition. He usually
had some criticisms to make no matter who was
running the paper that night. Sometimes they
were very trivial and sometimes they were
worthwhile.
Q: It was hard taking that kind of criticism?
A: Oh, I didn't mind it so much from him, I
guess. Well, he was managing editor of the
paper.
Q: The issue being criticism from others,
huh?
A: I guess so, yes. I'll agree with that.
Q: People who weren't your supervisor?
A: Yes.
Q: And also the story about Frank Eyerly,
I've heard this from another reporter that he
had the first edition delivered to his house
by taxi.
A: That's correct, yes.
Q: What's that all about?
A: Well, he liked to be able to read it, at
least glance through it and see what we had
done with it. I think probably before he left
in the afternoon he had rough idea what the
big stories of the day were going to, be but
he certainly didn't know the details.
Q: That was, of course, the morning paper.
A: Yes.
Q: Why wouldn't that have been delivered to
him by a paperboy?
A: Well, because he had to make changes in it
before the city edition came out.
Q: You point out that during your entire
career you were one of the more invisible
people at the Register. What do you mean by
that?
A: Well, I wasn't a name; I didn't have
bylines like the reporters do. Certainly I
wasn't a columnist. So I mean copy desk
people and news desk are invisible. They
still are. Nobody knows who they are.
Q: Did that bother you when you had that
position?
A: Not particularly, no. I expected it would
be that way. --
Section 3:
Q: And going back to the late '40s and early
'50s. I wonder if you could describe what
that newsroom looked like with the separation
of the departments and the various news
desks, where they were and such? The women,
the society page people.
A: Each paper had a semi-circular copy desk.
And I would locate the one at the Register as
about one-third of the way down from the
north end of the room and the Tribune one
about one-third of the way from the south end
of the room. And each one of those had a news
editor's desk attached to it and a city
editor's desk attached to it. And departments
like sports, well they were just scattered
here and there. There would be three or four
desks for sports, three or four desks for
society over there and I guess the farm
editor had a desk and the state editor had a
desk and that sort of thing. The business
editor. They didn't do much with business in
those days. Probably one person did it all,
maybe two.
Q: Reporters shared typewriters?
A: Shared typewriters and desk. They did not,
as I recall, have individual desks. There
were a few desks for the reporters to use and
that was it.
Q: And I guess at the time Harvey Ingham was
still there? Was he or was in his last year?
A: It was just his last year of life. He was
90 years old and had retired. He used to
wander through the place, not every day, very
frequently so I saw him and met him but I
never had any dealings with him.
Q: How about Mike Cowles? Did you see him at
all?
A: Very seldom. He was in New York [NY]
dealing with Look Magazine most of the time,
I think.
Q: Other people ever come to mind? George
Yates? I think he was there at about the time
you were.
A: Oh, yes. He was still there. Was he chief
photographer? I don't know, but oh, yes, he
definitely was there.
Q: He had quite a personality too, I've
heard.
A: He did. He was a British guy. Looked and
talked it. (laughs)
Q: Can you remember anything more about him
or some of the other personalities around the
newsroom?
A: Oh, not particularly. No.
Q: How about some of the people that you
mentioned in your text? Bud Mize, Ogden
Dwight, Russell Schoch.
A: Bud Mize was a southerner. And I don't
know how he came to the Register or how long
he'd been there, but he was news editor of
the Tribune.
Q: You worked pretty closely with him then?
A: Definitely, yes. He did the day-by-day
operation is what he did. And chose the
stories and where they were going to go and
that sort of thing.
Q: Did you socialize with some of these
people outside of work?
A: Not those two that I mentioned. But when I
mentioned Otto Knauth for example who I
didn't necessarily work directly with. And
Jim Cary who's telegraph editor of the
Tribune. We, Ingrid and I, socialized with
him and Marge for a couple of years. Joe
Patrick who was a copyreader on the Tribune
at the time, we socialized quite a bit in the
early years.
Q: And there was a point in some of your text
where you said Eyerly ordered you never to
sit on the "slot" again. What was that about?
A: That I never knew. I guess he just was
dissatisfied with my work as telegraph editor
and assistant news editor.
Q: With the Tribune.
A: With the Register. I was going along I
thought pretty good at the Register and so
that turned out to be quite a surprise.
Q: It came out of left field then.
A: It really did, yes. I think I mentioned in
my manuscript, he and MacDonald both asked if
I would like to go the editorial pages and I
said sure. And as a matter of fact, I had
wanted to be an editorial writer from the
beginning, but I never applied for the job
because in 1948 you got to be an editorial
writer by having been an editor or reporter
for many years. They told me, Eyerly and
MacDonald, "Why, two years ago we offered you
a position on the editorial pages and you
turned it down." And I had no memory of that,
so all I can say is that there must have been
some terrible miscommunication. They didn't
understand me and I didn't understand them.
Q: Did you suspect they weren't being honest
with you or was it just like you say, the
communication?
A: I think it was miscommunication. Yes. --
Section 4:
Q: When you were sending out resumes to the
Register or sending out resumes when you got
out of school, did you have any idea of how
well renowned the paper was in journalistic
circles and nationally?
A: I think I did, yes. It wasn't until later
that I realized that it came up on
everybody's list of the top ten for a while.
But yes, I knew it was good. Another paper
that I knew was good was the Milwaukee
Journal. I applied there and I got an offer
from them after I came out here. But as I
mentioned, most of the papers I applied to
were smaller, ordinary kinds that I thought I
had a chance of getting a job with. (laughs)
Q: And of course your perspective changed
after you had been hired.
A: Yes.
Q: When you started finding out more and more
about the Register.
A: Yes.
Q: Any clues as to what you think it was that
made the Register so outstanding. I mean, a
Midwest paper out here in the middle of
seemingly nowhere compared to the New York
Times and the Post and such?
A: Well, of course they had a good Washington
bureau and they definitely made a point of
covering national news and world news. I mean
they did a lot more of that in those days but
then everybody did. And I came to think that
the editorial pages had a lot to do with it.
Coincidentally, just this morning I was
reading in the paper something about Harvey
Ingham and he thought that the editorial
pages had a lot to do with growth of the
Register. I used to tell people you read
through the list of towns where the Register
has circulation; they got 15 readers here in
this little town of 400 and that sort of
thing. And I'll bet you a dime that they are
the 15 most important people in that town and
a lot of them read it because of the opinion
pages because they can get the news out of
the Mason City [IA] paper or Ottumwa [IA] or
whatever circulates in their area. And so I
guess Harvey Ingham's view sort of confirms
what I was saying all these years. I do think
we had good editorial and opinion pages.
That's why I was real glad to be associated
with them for so long.
Q: What makes an editorial page or opinion
page something better than the other? I mean,
what made it so good?
A: I suppose the selection of materials that
goes on of the columnists and the other
people that write for it. And naturally the
editorials. I mean you hire good people; they
tend to write better stuff than people who
weren't so good.
Q: How about giving, I mean you wrote over
5,000 editorials yourself, how about giving
me an example of some of the ones that really
standout in your mind. Ones that, stories
that you worked on and opinions that you
professed in your editorials.
A: Well, for several years I specialized in
doing the foreign things so when, like the
Soviet Union was breaking up for example, I
did a lot of that. I also did quite a few on
business and that sort of thing. Is there any
one standout in 5,000? No.
Q: As an editorial writer you are rather
anonymous back there.
A: Exactly. Except when you do an op-ed
piece.
Q: (laughs) Talk about that, too. I imagine
the readers who were getting the Register...
A: Yes.
Q: ...essentially you, some feedback. Can you
remember any feedback you got, negative,
positive of things that you may have written?
Specific...
A: Oh, I'm sure I did. I recall one time when
I wrote an editorial approving a tax on
insurance companies and some insurance
company withdrew their advertising for a
while and it cost the Register $9,000, but I
wasn't rebuked or reprimanded for it.
Q: I was going to ask you something about
that. Can you remember any other things that
may have sparked some concern for would have
been people from the business department and
people from the editorial department? You
know, being at odds with one another?
A: Well, at sometime there were editorials
that offended Younkers and they pulled their
advertising for a short period of time and
that cost a lot of money. I wasn't involved
in that and I don't really know what the
situation was.
Q: With your own experience, writing about
the tax on insurance companies, was there
anything, did you feel the impact in any
other way from your supervisors?
A: No, I felt that we had very substantial
freedom to write what we wanted to.
Q: Were there other issues of conflict of
interest that you can remember, things that
you may have written about that the Register
people weren't happy with?
A: Not that I'm aware of. Of course, all of
the editorials were discussed at the
editorial conference every morning.
Q: I was going to ask you about that. What
was the process of how the editorials were
chosen and who would end up writing them?
A: Well, we all gathered 9:00 every morning
and the editorial page editor went around the
table and asked each person what he thought
he'd like to write about that day. We were
kind of expected to have two suggestions, but
if you didn't have any that was OK. And
sometimes he would say right away, "OK, do
that one" or he would say, "I don't think we
need that one." And then everybody was free
to discuss what was proposed. If I had
proposed an editorial on Gorbachev for
example...
Q: What? Oh. Gorbachev?
A: Mikhail Gorbachev, yes. Other people would
chime in. There was a lot of input; everybody
was allowed to say what they thought about
everything. And so we went around the table
that way and usually got more editorials than
we needed. Occasionally the editor would have
an idea, something that should be written,
that nobody suggested. Then he would say,
"John, why don't you write about this today,"
and that's generally the way it was done.
Q: And each had a specialization too?
A: Well, yes. One or several specializations
but we weren't confined to that by any means.
Q: What was your territory besides
international relations?
A: Oh, I would say business, probably
business and international, yes.
Q: I imagine too there was a lot of research
that went into it. Talking with the reporter
and phone calls to sources and such?
A: Oh yes, there was.
Q: Could you talk a little about that? What
that entails? It was a reporting job in that
sense.
A: Well, in that sense it was. Of course if
you did any national editorials you didn't
have to talk to many reporters (laughs). But
on any local editorial you'd have to check
with reporter to find out if he knew any more
about it than had been written and that sort
of thing. Sometime he'd say, the reporter
would be able to say, " Well, there was this
that we didn't think was appropriate to put
in the news story but..."
Q: To what extent was the reporter involved?
Merely with regard to the research or was
their opinion considered about the issue?
A: Oh, it would be the research, I think.
Yes. --
Section 5:
Q: As an editorial writer you are rather
anonymous back there.
A: Exactly. Except when you do an op-ed
piece.
Q: (laughs) Talk about that, too. I imagine
the readers who were getting the Register...
A: Yes.
Q: ...essentially you, some feedback. Can you
remember any feedback you got, negative,
positive of things that you may have written?
Specific...
A: Oh, I'm sure I did. I recall one time when
I wrote an editorial approving a tax on
insurance companies and some insurance
company withdrew their advertising for a
while and it cost the Register $9,000, but I
wasn't rebuked or reprimanded for it.
Q: I was going to ask you something about
that. Can you remember any other things that
may have sparked some concern for would have
been people from the business department and
people from the editorial department? You
know, being at odds with one another?
A: Well, at sometime there were editorials
that offended Younkers and they pulled their
advertising for a short period of time and
that cost a lot of money. I wasn't involved
in that and I don't really know what the
situation was.
Q: With your own experience, writing about
the tax on insurance companies, was there
anything, did you feel the impact in any
other way from your supervisors?
A: No, I felt that we had very substantial
freedom to write what we wanted to.
Q: Were there other issues of conflict of
interest that you can remember, things that
you may have written about that the Register
people weren't happy with?
A: Not that I'm aware of. Of course, all of
the editorials were discussed at the
editorial conference every morning.
Q: I was going to ask you about that. What
was the process of how the editorials were
chosen and who would end up writing them?
A: Well, we all gathered 9:00 every morning
and the editorial page editor went around the
table and asked each person what he thought
he'd like to write about that day. We were
kind of expected to have two suggestions, but
if you didn't have any that was OK. And
sometimes he would say right away, "OK, do
that one" or he would say, "I don't think we
need that one." And then everybody was free
to discuss what was proposed. If I had
proposed an editorial on Gorbachev for
example...
Q: What? Oh. Gorbachev?
A: Mikhail Gorbachev, yes. Other people would
chime in. There was a lot of input; everybody
was allowed to say what they thought about
everything. And so we went around the table
that way and usually got more editorials than
we needed. Occasionally the editor would have
an idea, something that should be written,
that nobody suggested. Then he would say,
"John, why don't you write about this today,"
and that's generally the way it was done.
Q: And each had a specialization too?
A: Well, yes. One or several specializations
but we weren't confined to that by any means.
Q: What was your territory besides
international relations?
A: Oh, I would say business, probably
business and international, yes.
Q: I imagine too there was a lot of research
that went into it. Talking with the reporter
and phone calls to sources and such?
A: Oh yes, there was.
Q: Could you talk a little about that? What
that entails? It was a reporting job in that
sense.
A: Well, in that sense it was. Of course if
you did any national editorials you didn't
have to talk to many reporters (laughs). But
on any local editorial you'd have to check
with reporter to find out if he knew any more
about it than had been written and that sort
of thing. Sometime he'd say, the reporter
would be able to say, " Well, there was this
that we didn't think was appropriate to put
in the news story but..."
Q: To what extent was the reporter involved?
Merely with regard to the research or was
their opinion considered about the issue?
A: Oh, it would be the research, I think.
Yes. --
Section 6:
Q: And also you said before we started the
tape that you had some liberal leanings too.
Would it be that some of the editorials you
wrote, they chose you to write these from the
liberal side?
A: I think that's possible yes. Although I
think most of the writers tended to be on the
liberal side in those days.
Q: Were you more liberal than others or were
you pretty much mainstream liberal? (laughs)
A: I think I was on the liberal side of
liberal. (laughs)
Q: Is there a possibility that that may have
been the reason why you didn't advance at the
Tribune, not at the Tribune but at the
Register where I guess it was Flansburg that
was...
A: Oh, you mean as the editorial page editor,
yes. Oh, that is a possibility. I also think
that I was too old at the time to really be
considered for it.
Q: You think politics were considered when
deciding on sort of a supervisory manager?
A: Certainly they were. I know that Jim
Gannon had Flansburg in mind from the
beginning and invited applications knowing
that Flansburg was going to be chosen. And
Geneva Overholser knew that, too. And guess
what happened with Flansburg about six months
after she became editor of the newspaper.
(laughs) He retired and became a columnist.
Q: Any opinion on that kind of decision
making? I mean those types of considerations
going into the decision making process?
A: Don't they go through it in every
business?
Q: You saw the changes in your department
when the new ownership took over. What were
those changes and how do you think they
affected the look of the paper?
A: When the new ownership took over I didn't
notice any changes in that. The changes were
when the Tribune was abandoned in 1982.
Because for a few years after Gannett took
over, they didn't make any changes at all.
They kind of said to us, "You can run any
kind of newspaper that you want, good or bad,
as long as it makes money." (laughs) And they
did not interfere.
Q: One editor said that they got kind of a
ten-year free ride there. What does that
mean?
A: Well, that they didn't insist on any
changes. It wasn't until they thought that
the profits were too low that the managers
cut back.
Q: So in fact there was a point where did,
there was something...
A: That's been about the last five years or
so, I'd say. Since that time, you have seen
an awful lot of Register people going
somewhere else.
Q: What do you think of the paper today?
Compared to what it was?
A: I don't think it is as good as it was.
Maybe that's unavoidable. People don't have
time to read anymore. All that stuff that I
used to slave over, columns and columns about
the Joseph McCarthy hearings. Even the New
York Times wouldn't publish stuff like that
today because nobody has time to read it.
Q: What else do you think is lacking in the
presentation of the paper today?
A: Well, state news. They really cut back on
that. It just wasn't profitable to send 15
Registers out to this little town.
Q: And in fact they have closed some bureaus.
A: They closed some bureaus. Yes they have.
Q: What's wrong with that? I mean do you
think that's just the nature of the times
where we have to live with it?
A: I suppose it is. There just isn't that
much interest in news any more and of course
even on television news, there isn't interest
in the real news.
Q: Although the Times is still one of the
best read papers...
A: Of course it is, yes it is. And it was one
of the best. The Times and Washington Post. I
love the two weeks I spend visiting my sister
in Washington reading the Post everyday. --
Section 7:
Q: What do you think suffers when there are
fewer people writing editorials and there is
more advertising and less time spent putting
the paper together? The editorial page
specifically.
A: There are more mistakes for one thing.
Sometimes just silly little mistakes. I think
there definitely is not so much research
going into it. And the fact that they only
have six people now and one of them has to
spend about three-quarters of their time
doing what the composing room used to do.
That means they can only have two editorials
a day if they're lucky. Sometimes three.
Q: Whereas before you had?
A: Always had four. Maybe three if they were
longer ones, yes.
Q: And talk about the concerns that you had
of having advertising on the
Nation/World/Opinion section.
A: Well that's the one thing I guess I'll
never forgive them for. I think most of the
good newspapers now still have a Sunday
Opinion section as such for the front page
and an investigating piece. That sort of
thing. At least the ones I see have that. So
when two years ago or thereabouts, why, they
sold the bottom 40% of the page to Younkers
and then filled the top of the page with what
I consider, second-rate general news-section
stuff. I thought that was unforgivable. As a
matter of fact, I wrote a letter to the
editor on the subject and Dennis Ryerson
called me and said we couldn't use it for
obvious reasons but he kind of agreed with
me.
Q: Dennis Ryerson agreed with you?
A: That was when he was editorial page
editor. (laughs)
Q: I wonder if he'd agree with you now.
(laughs)
A: Maybe not. I don't know. (laughs)
Q: It may seem obvious to some of us, but why
is it that that is unforgivable? I mean, it's
a business.
A: Well, they don't have ads on the front
page. They don't have ads, I guess, on the
front page of any section do they now, except
the opinion? Well, I guess they don't have
anything that big on the front page of any
section. That just seems to be downgrading
it, burying the opinion section; it's not
worth displaying.
Q: Perhaps the separation of advertising and
editorial concept needs to be more
distinctive?
A: Well, I guess so. I guess I wouldn't have
minded their putting the ad entirely in the
section somewhere. I believe the New York
Times Op-Ed page still has ads on it because
we used to brag about ours that did not have
ads and the New York Times did. So I wouldn't
object to seeing an ad on each of the inside
pages.
Q: It made me kind of wonder whether the
readers really care, you know, if they notice
something like this. Maybe it's just the
professionals like yourself that see it.
A: That's quite possible, yes.
Q: I think I touched on this, but again maybe
you can expand it. Was there ever any
pressure from either the previous or the
current ownership, the Gannett folks to
present an editorial differently, perhaps a
different position that would otherwise not
rile an advertiser? Did you ever see that
when you where there?
A: I was never aware of anything like that.
Sometimes, obviously sometimes, Ken MacDonald
didn't like our viewpoint and wondered if we
should modify it a bit. It was more general;
it didn't have anything to do with
advertising pressure, that I'm aware of. --
Section 8:
Q: We know back in the days when there were
more people who were keeping a close eye on
this paper and what it looked like, the
management was a stickler for accuracy. How
was that conveyed to you when were a
copyreader and a copy editor in the early
days?
A: Well, we got rebuked for mistakes,
certainly. I don't believe they published any
corrections though. Now they publish a
correction every day for a misspelling. I
can't recall that in the olden days they
corrected anything unless it was really a
gross and terrible error.
Q: Can you recall any stories yourself about
glaring mistakes or a close call on your part
when you were on the copy desk?
A: Not specifically, but I know there were
plenty. I have kept a diary for all my life
and as I read through those pages I find a
number of times when I pulled a boner on
this. (laughs)
Q: Or anybody else on the desk, an anecdote
that you can remember that stands out where
somebody really screwed up?
A: Not specifically, no.
Q: OK. Tell us about the job too of what the
telegraph operator did.
A: Telegraph editor.
Q: Telegraph editor. We don't know.
A: You don't have one. Well,....
Q: Stuff like that.
A: Well, he was the slot man. He sat in the
middle of the center circle and he
distributed the stories to the copy editors
on the rim. He sorted them out and decided.
Well, of course, the news editor decided
mainly which main stories we were going to
use, but the telegraph editor took the other
stuff. He took it off the Teletype machines,
you know. That's what they had in those days.
It came in over the wire.
Q: Because we have Teletype machines today
you know. It churns out the copy. Is that the
way it looked?
A: Yes.
Q: AP.
A: Yes. It was brought over to the desk and
the telegraph editor decided who was going to
get which. And then he checked the headlines
and sent the copy down.
Q: That probably goes for national and
international stories then, right?
A: Yes, because, of course, the city editor
sent over the city stories but they passed
through the telegraph editor and he assigned
them to different people to edit and again
check the headlines and that sort of thing.
Q: They passed through him by telephone? I
mean he would get a phone call?
A: No, they were written on a typewriter. The
editing was all done on the city desk and
then they always passed over by hand.
Q: Although there were times when some of the
news was so urgent that a call had to be made
into the newsroom.
A: Oh yes, definitely. Yes.
Q: What kind of stories would those be?
A: I suppose the great flood of '49 and that
sort of thing.
Q: Do you remember that?
A: That was a great flood. I think it was
'52, as a matter of fact, that we thought
Nick Lamberto was lost in Omaha because he
went over to cover the flood and nobody had
ever heard of him for many, many hours and
there was a real stir. But of course it
turned out that he was safe. (laughs)
Q: And he got his story, right? (laughs)
A: He got his story. (laughs) Right. --
Section 9:
Q: And tell the story about Eyerly's order to
kill the story about the VW.
A: Oh, yes. A funny little short about a
Volkswagen Beetle that ran over a jackrabbit
and that caused the Beetle to turn over in
the ditch. And since Eyerly owned one of the
few Beetles that were around in those days,
he ordered the story be killed. Eyerly
incidentally didn't drive. I don't think he
got a license. It was Jeanette that did all
the driving.
Q: So, Jeanette, his wife owned the VW?
A: No. Whoever owned it. She drove it anyhow.
(laughs)
Q: Any other significant or insignificant
anecdotes that you can remember about Eyerly
and the way he...?
A: No. He was a good bird watcher and several
times a year the local bird club naturally
went out and had its bird count. And he made
sure we got that into the Register the next
morning about that. Agate, 26 sparrows, 31
orioles and that sort of stuff. (laughs)
Q: The bird count?
A: Yes, the bird count.
Q: Oh OK. That's unique. I don't think I have
ever read anything like that in the paper.
A: I don't think you would. But that was one
of his particular interests. He was very
interested in arts and culture and made sure
that we covered that real well. I recall one
day when I was not on the job, I read the
paper and saw a little story about this long
[indicates with finger about 1 inch] about
the death of, I can't remember his name, but
he was some rather famous contemporary
American artist. And I thought "Oh poor, Paul
Carman. He should have known to do more about
that." (laughs) An inch of type--he's going
to catch hell from Eyerly.
Q: And did he?
A: I think he probably did, yes.
Q: And Paul Carman was who?
A: Paul Carman was the telegraph editor on
the Register.
Q: And, of course, the Register was one of
the few papers in the United States that was
starting to publish stories about arts and
culture.
A: Oh yes, they were.
Q: And the choice was, that came...You think
that was the influence of Frank Eyerly?
A: He certainly helped it along, yes.
Q: I wonder why that was other than Frank who
was used to think the culture here in Des
Moines that needs to be covered?
A: I think Des Moines had considerably good
culture. Arts and music and theater.
Q: Compared to other cities, it's not the
first thing you would think about in Des
Moines.
A: No, you wouldn't, but once you're here,
you realize it. I know when Ingrid and I came
out here from Chicago we were just amazed at
the quality of the plays at the playhouse.
For a couple of years what we were seeing at
the playhouse was reruns of what we had
already seen in Chicago and they were just as
good here as they were in Chicago.
Q: Do you think the Register may have had
something to do with the flourishing of the
arts and culture here? Do you think it had
something to it?
A: Possibly, yes. I mean they were careful to
review things. Our art center, we've always
thought was a great asset to Des Moines. As a
matter of fact, three or four days after we
were married and came out to Des Moines, we
said let's go down to the art center. And we
didn't realize that was the first day of the
art center. (laughs) It was the grand
opening. And last year we went down to the
art center on our anniversary and it was the
50th anniversary of the art center, too.
(laughs) --
Section 10:
Q: We talked a little about the preeminence
of the Des Moines Register nationwide. How
much do you think the management had to do
with that? The ethics of Gardner Cowles?
Harvey Ingham? Their work ethic?
A: Oh, it had to have an influence. Quality
comes from the top as well as from the
bottom. They brought in good people and they
maintained high standards. No doubt about
that.
Q: You also talked about one of the people
hired on the copy desk being black, African
American.
A: Yes.
Q: He didn't work out. Could you tell that
story?
A: Yes. I don't know that I should name him
because he's probably still alive and working
somewhere. In fact, I think he did eventually
get a fairly decent job some place. This
would have been, obviously, in the 1950s
since there was the Register copy desk.
Q: We're fine.
A: OK.
Q: And go ahead.
A: So he came on as a copyreader and I don't
think he was there more than a few months and
we all tried to help him, but the fact is
that he just didn't have what it took. We had
probably ten or twelve people run through the
Register copy desk in the decade I was there.
People who stayed less than a year and then
were encouraged to leave and he was one of
them. So I don't think there is anything
racial about it. I think we all were plugging
for him and wanted him to make it, but the
fact is that he just couldn't. And some white
guys couldn't, either.
Q: The problem being that they were not
catching the mistakes.
A: That's right, you know. He just couldn't
edit a story well. Couldn't write a headline.
That sort of thing.
Q: Talk about in general, the minorities in
the newsroom back in the days of the late
'40s and '50s. Did you see many minorities?
A: What minorities? (laughs)
Q: Hispanics or African-Americans?
A: I think this guy was the first
African-American in the newsroom at all. I
can't recall any others.
Q: No black reporters for example?
A: No. I can't think of any.
Q: How about women reporters?
A: They came on slowly. As I mentioned, on
the Tribune copy desk, two of the five
copyreaders were women in the late '40s but
they were just holdovers from World War II.
Q: They weren't replaced then with other
women when they left?
A: No they weren't. And did we have a
Register woman copyreader ever? While I was
there? I can't remember her if we did.
Q: I think...
A: There were several reporters, of course,
Jane Boulware and Lulu Mae Coe and a couple
of others. Yes, they were pioneer women
reporters in the '50s.
Q: With the Register.
A: With the Register and with the Tribune.
Q: And, of course, there were a lot of women
on the society page.
A: Oh yes, definitely yes. Yes. And on the
editorial page women began to move in there
more for editing and make-up than for
writing, but then in the last two years we've
had a rush of them. Of course, what is it,
two of the six now are women.
Q: Yes.
A: And the deputy editor is a woman. --
Section 11:
Q: And you mentioned the in-house
competition, too, among copyreaders who were
going for those editing positions.
A: Oh yes, I can't imagine it would be
otherwise. I mean, so-and-so is promoted to
assistant telegraph editor and you think,
"Why didn't I get it?" or sometimes you
think, "There were other fellows that really
should have had it. Why did they give it to
him?" At least I felt that way. I don't know
if other people did too.
Q: Would it ever be a point where somebody
could go from the copy desk to being a
reporter or was the natural step into....?
A: I think it was mainly just into other
editing positions, yes. And if you reached
the point where you realized you weren't
going to get any higher, why then you started
looking for some other newspaper.
Q: And in this case there were several times
when you did start looking for other
newspapers.
A: Exactly. Yes.
Q: What provoked that?
A: Well, when they reduced me from telegraph
editor to copyreader again, and before they
offered me the editorial page job, yes, I
wrote some of my old friends and mentors and
they both encouraged me to stay.
Q: Was it always the case when you were there
that anyone and everyone worked for both the
Register and the Tribune?
A: On the editorial pages, yes. Of course the
reporters were Register... --
Section 12:
A: Two years ago we decided the stock market
is going to crash so we took $40,000 out of
our profits out of that and paid cash for a
VW Passat, which is the top of the line, and
enjoyed it.
Q: You've been happy with it.
A: And the market didn't crash. It just kept
going up.
Q: Speaking of money, you made a killing with
Gannett, I guess on some stock...
A: The Register, of course, was owned almost
solely by the Cowles family. They owned
virtually all the stock, but they had a small
block of it that they made available to
certain employees. I don't know how
privileged you had to be to get it. But they
offered me the chance about 1958 to buy some
stock and I certainly couldn't afford to buy
anything like that but I did manage to scrape
up about $2,000. Yes, when Gannett bought the
Register out, those 50 shares or whatever
they were, were worth $80,000. So I made a
killing on that.
Q: Any idea on how it was that they chose the
employees who had been offered that?
A: That was always a mystery. I don't know
how many there were but MacDonald called me
into the office one day and said I'd been
chosen to have a chance to buy some stock. Of
course, it wasn't entirely mine because I had
to sell it back to the Register if I ever
left the Register. I couldn't sell it to
anybody else. As a matter of fact, I couldn't
even use it as security for a loan that I was
trying to get, except that the Register had
an arrangement with what was then the
Iowa-Des Moines National Bank, that they
would take Register stock as security for a
loan and then sell it back to the Register if
necessary. So I got a couple of loans on
that. (laughs)
Q: And what would your position have been at
the Register in '58?
A: Oh, I guess assistant telegraph
editor/assistant news editor. So it probably
was a very minor editorial position, probably
just one rank up from private. (laughs)
Q: And you don't even speculate on what the
reason was that you were chosen, you can't
imagine why?
A: No, unless they took, it may have gone
with job or might have been that they
decided...to some extent I think that was it.
They decided they wanted, certain people they
wanted to keep so they encouraged them to
stay by offering to sell them stock.
Q: You've had some real ups and downs with
that company in the sense that...
A: Definitely yes.
Q: That at one time they weren't happy with
your work and then you saw that they were.
A: That's right.
Q: Giving you clues that they liked to keep
you. And that brings me to my next question.
You wrote that Eyerly always seemed to retain
confidence in you all the way back, early on.
What were the clues that told you he wanted
to keep you around?
A: Well I guess just the fact that he kept
me. When I said I wanted to get out, why he
got me out to the Register, away from the
Tribune. And when he decided in 1960, I guess
it was, that I was going to be a copyreader
again, he brought me onto the editorial
pages. So I think he wanted to keep me. As a
matter of fact, the change was not entirely
involuntary. I mean ten years of night work
with a family was getting to be an awful
strain. We were having some problems.
Q: Financially?
A: Not financially no. Emotionally. And so I
was not really too saddened, but then, of
course, I did have to be a copyreader for a
few months till an opening came on the
editorial pages. I think my old friend Howard
Taylor was right when he told me in 1960,
"Don't leave there because they'll find
something for you." And they did.
Q: And going back all the way to Howard
Taylor and even before you were into
journalism, what made you decide on a career
in journalism?
A: The opportunity to write. That is a
strange thing to say when I didn't want to be
a reporter. I used to dream of being a
fiction writer and making a living that way.
But, of course, that was only an impossible
dream. And I guess I just gravitated into
journalism. I didn't really decide until my
final months at Medill whether I was going to
go into magazine or newspaper journalism. But
then I found myself writing all my resumes
for newspapers instead of magazines.
Q: And you had it in your mind, too, what you
wanted to do which was copy editing.
A: Yes.
Q: How did that decision come about?
A: Because I thought it was something I could
do.
Q: Oh, OK.
A: And I thought it would lead to better
editing positions.
Q: Do you write freelance at all or have you
written other materials not connected with
the paper?
A: No, I really haven't. In the first couple
of years I tried but didn't have any success.
So I figured OK, that isn't my line of
business, after all. But I do enjoy writing
and I was much more comfortable writing the
material I gave you then I am talking about
it because I was more coherent. --
Section 13:
Q: Can you name any of your mentors who may
have been at the Register or anywhere else?
A: Apart from Howard Taylor, there's one
professor at Medill, Jacob Scher that I
remember favorably.
Q: What was the experience with him?
A: Well, he just encouraged me to go into the
editing line of business. He conducted
classes in news editing. No, I don't seem to
recall any mentors at the Register. Maybe Ray
Wright, who was news editor at the Register
for several years that I worked over there.
Then he went to Denver [CO] after that.
Q: Clearly you were a great person to have on
the copy desk. (laughs) One way or another.
A: They seemed to think I was or they
certainly would have sent me packing before
they did. (laughs)
Q: Obviously personality conflicts on
occasion but on the other hand they kept you
around. Were there other people that stood
out in your mind there that you worked with
that were good copy editors?
A: Well of course from the Tribune Joe
Patrick was very good. On the Register, Ole
Hellie, Paul Carman. Can't think of any
others that really stand out.
Q: For those of us not in the know, maybe you
can expand on what makes a good copy editor?
A: You have to be able to get the gist of the
story because almost invariably it means
trimming it. And you have to know how to trim
and make some sense of it. I guess that's the
main thing. Getting the idea of the story and
knowing what you are going to do with it and
then trying to condense it into a six-word
headline.
Q: And then, of course, I would guess the
basics too. Sentence structure.
A: Oh yes, that sort of thing. You would have
to know grammar. I still get offended when I
see grammatical boners and the use of wrong
words.
Q: Did you ever get any flak from reporters
who you did some things to their stories?
A: I used to get flak from Flansburg when I
edited his column before he became editor of
the editorial pages. (laughs)
Q: I guess it varies.
A: It varies with the person.
Q: What kind of flak would you get? What
would his problems be with what you did?
Trimming it too much or what?
A: Basically trimming it. "You shouldn't have
left that out. It was the most important
thing in the column." As a matter of fact,
after Lauren Soth retired as editor of the
pages, he used to write occasionally and
several times he would tell me, "Why did you
take out that sentence? That was the most
important." (laughs) He couldn't have meant
that it was the most important. (laughs)
Q: So was there ever the back and forth where
perhaps you'd say, maybe you're right or did
you pretty much ...?
A: I got along quite well with Lauren. As a
matter of fact, I'm told that he recommended
me to be the editor of the editorial pages in
1982. That just might have worked out. I
really had a proposal for Jim Gannon, "I'm 60
years old, I'll retire in five years. Here's
this very talented young woman Geneva
Overholser. Make her deputy editor for five
years and she'll stay, knowing she can become
editor five years from now." He didn't go for
that and she went to New York.
Q: This was before she came back?
A: Yes. When she applied for the position of
editorial page editor just like I did, she
shortly left for the New York Times to be an
editorial writer there. And then after a
couple of years, why, Gannett hired her back
because they were very big on getting women
into prominent positions. They hired her back
as editor of the newspaper.
Q: Back to the process of editing a story or
a column, how would you respond to somebody
that said, hey you took that out, that was
the most important part of the story?
(laughs)
A: I guess I would just have to be friendly
about it and say, "Well, opinions differ. I
just felt it was something we couldn't keep."
I mean, I would not argue with them.
Q: How did you get along with people like
George Mills, a very aggressive reporter out
there? And obviously you would be editing
some of his copy, too.
A: I never had any problems with George. No.
We maintained a social relationship right
down to the present.
Q: So you socialized with him outside of the
Register?
A: Yes.
Q: And also you talked about the fact that
they were calling you back after you had
retired and you were doing some part-time
things with the Register?
A: With the editorial page, yes.
Q: What were the sorts of things where that
was happening?
A: Usually it was when somebody left and it
took them a couple of months to find them a
replacement. For example when Ryerson left as
editorial page editor and went out to Great
Falls [MT] to be editor of the paper out
there, why, it took a couple of months and
they just needed somebody, not to be editor
because we had a deputy editor at that time
who did that work. But they just needed a
live body to write editorials and select
material and edit the stuff. In other words,
all the things I used to do. And that
happened on four occasions, I think it was.
