The Times of last Saturday published a letter from several
well-known firms of advertising agents protesting against circulars which had been issued by the "Financial Publicity Department" of Renter's Agency. Reuter's Publicity Depart- ment, in appealing for more orders from advertisers, indicated the advantage of dealing with an agency which had "intimate relations with the press," and could secure "extended editorial reference" to the affairs of its clients. In other words, this department held out the prospect that if advertising were done through it, Reuter's Agency would see to it that editors would "crack up" the goods of their advertisers. A more preposterous promise, or one more damaging to the prestige of the press if it were allowed to pass unchallenged, could not possibly be imagined. A somewhat turgi d letter of explanation subsequently written by the Publicity Department stated that the " mis- conception " would be removed, though we cannot see that the language of the circulars admitted of any misconception. We are very glad, though no other course was to be expected, that newspaper proprietors' associations met as soon as pos- sible all over the country and denounced the most offensive circulars. If the press were to sell its approval to any purchaser while maintaining the air of an impartial critic its authority would be utterly and deservedly lost. On Tuesday it was announced that the circulars had been withdrawn.
Previous page
