The 40's and 50's had quite a few movies in which newspapers and newspapermen were the central focus. There was "Scandal Sheet," "Ace in the Hole," "It Happened Tomorrow," "Foreign Correspondent," "His Girl Friday," this movie, and others. I suppose it makes sense considering print media was the largest and most influential form of media with television a decade or so away from becoming the ubiquitous medium it is now.
Ed Hutcheson (Humphrey Bogart) was the editor of The Day, a thriving New York newspaper. The owner and founder had just died and The Day was being sold by the wife and the two daughters. Ed was giving it his all trying to do what he could to prevent the sale as well as continue to print relevant news. He dedicated all of his staff and resources to looking into a local mobster named Tomas Rienzi (Martin Gabel) when one of his reporters was hospitalized for digging up too much information on the same gangster. He thought maybe, just maybe, this story would both: expose a criminal and save the paper.
This was an ideologue movie. There were two stories running parallel to each other. One was the story of the gangster and his outsized influence, the other was the newspaper being sold to a competitor who was going to shutter it. The gangster story was a thrilling one, but the paper being sold was a principled one.
If The Day was sold to a competitor and then closed down, that would be one less voice for the people. It would be one less viewpoint, one less source of news, and one less competitor for the other papers. Such a thing couldn't be good for the reader and the average citizen. Market competition has always benefited the consumer (even though it's not benefiting us much nowadays with gas prices) while monopolies have always harmed the consumer.
This was a pivotal issue with The Day being sold, but it also directly confronted a person's or business's capitalistic right to sell their property. Should the courts prevent this sale based upon it taking away a source of news from your average citizen, what other sales would the courts be allowed to, or have to prevent? It was a novel argument that played out on screen and gave the viewer food for thought.
Free on YouTube.
Ed Hutcheson (Humphrey Bogart) was the editor of The Day, a thriving New York newspaper. The owner and founder had just died and The Day was being sold by the wife and the two daughters. Ed was giving it his all trying to do what he could to prevent the sale as well as continue to print relevant news. He dedicated all of his staff and resources to looking into a local mobster named Tomas Rienzi (Martin Gabel) when one of his reporters was hospitalized for digging up too much information on the same gangster. He thought maybe, just maybe, this story would both: expose a criminal and save the paper.
This was an ideologue movie. There were two stories running parallel to each other. One was the story of the gangster and his outsized influence, the other was the newspaper being sold to a competitor who was going to shutter it. The gangster story was a thrilling one, but the paper being sold was a principled one.
If The Day was sold to a competitor and then closed down, that would be one less voice for the people. It would be one less viewpoint, one less source of news, and one less competitor for the other papers. Such a thing couldn't be good for the reader and the average citizen. Market competition has always benefited the consumer (even though it's not benefiting us much nowadays with gas prices) while monopolies have always harmed the consumer.
This was a pivotal issue with The Day being sold, but it also directly confronted a person's or business's capitalistic right to sell their property. Should the courts prevent this sale based upon it taking away a source of news from your average citizen, what other sales would the courts be allowed to, or have to prevent? It was a novel argument that played out on screen and gave the viewer food for thought.
Free on YouTube.