Life, 1914-03-26 · page 12 of 41
Life — March 26, 1914 — page 12: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page from *Life* magazine debates which American newspapers are "best." The main article argues only three papers merit regular reading: the *Kansas City Star*, *Springfield Republican*, and *Boston Transcript*. The author dismisses major metropolitan papers like the *World*, *Times*, and *Sun* as superficial or uninspired. The cartoons illustrate related social commentary: 1. **"The Point of View"** (top left): A masked woman and military officer recognize each other despite disguises—a joke about identity and deception. 2. **"Pup" cartoon** (bottom right): A dog questions why an old man lacks teeth, a crude gag about aging. The page reflects early 1900s elitism about journalism quality and intellectual standards—concerns about which institutions best served educated readers.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
The Best Newspapers? NE of our friends submits the following: For some time I have been interested in the question as to what are the best newspapers in the United States. The result of my study is that there are only three news- papers in the country worth reading regularly. These are: The Kansas City Star. The Springfield Republican. The Boston Transcript. I have selected these three papers, not only because they contain regularly the kind of news and human observation that I desire, but because they do not contain anything objectionable. There are several other papers which might rank with these three did they not contain too much su- perfluous and unworthy material. The Minneapolis Journal has an admisable editorial page; so has the Philadelphia Record; also the Louisville Courier-Journal; but in sus- tained journalistic clevation none of these papers compares with the three I have mentioned. I’ have purposely omitted the Metropolitan papers, be- cause they are open to the same objection, The World, for instance, is undoubtedly a great paper, but aside from its editorial page—perhaps the best in the country—it is muddily printed, and its make-up is atrocious. The Times is in many respects admirable, but uninspired and dull. The Sun has not that note of distinction that it once had, although it is well done. I claim, however, that a regular reading of the three papers I have mentioned better fulfills ae al re- Pave coon THE POINT OF VIEW She: But How pip YoU KNOW ME WITH MY MASK on? He: You FrorckT THAT I HAVE SEEN YOU IN YOUR BATHING SUIT. Suffragette: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF OUR SLOGAN— “VOTES FOR WOMEN, CHASTITY FOR MEN”? Victim (conciliatingly) : wiy, 11’s A FAIR ENOUGH TRADE. quirements of the average cultivated American than any other combination. What do you think? Our friend's observations are extremely interesting, but we fear that the editors of all the other papers not on his list will not agree with him, There is the Chicago Trib- une—doubtless open to his objection of superfluosity. There is the Baltimore Sun—the Atlanta Constitution But what do our readers think? Assuming that your standard requires a covering of all the principal news of the day, well written, together with such comment and illumination upon the progress of the world in Science, Literature, Art and Music, with a mini- mum of superfluous and objectionable material, what threc papers are better than those presented in our friend’s list? Pup: EXCUSE ME, OLD CHAP, BUT ISN'T THAT RATHER AN ODD PLACE TO HAVE TEETH?