A

THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA

Against Entry

William Randolph Hearst, the larger-than-life publisher of the New York American, the San Francisco Examiner, and many other major papers and magazines, opposed U.S. entry into World War I, both before and after it occurred. Hearst was no pacifist, as his enthusiasm for the war against Spain in 1898 had demonstrated. But from the beginning of war in 1914, and through the three years of official American neutrality, he and his papers argued that it was Europe's war, that the Allies would lose, and that there was no sense getting involved and sacrificing American lives. He was called anti-British (true), pro-German (false), and the most hated man in the country. His publications lost circulation, advertising revenue, and respect. Hearst was burned in effigy, not for the first or last time.

Anti-British

Hearst disliked the English for several reasons. His wife was Irish American, and he thus supported Ireland's resistance to British rule. Also, he had sympathy for all peoples fighting for their freedom. Hearst detested President Woodrow Wilson, who was a confirmed Anglophile and whose ostensibly neutral policies slid closer and closer to the Allies between 1914 and 1917. He objected to the loans made by American banks to the British, in effect wagering the health of the American economy on the victory of the Allies and providing a compelling reason to guarantee it. A longtime dislike for anything Japanese also fueled Hearst's opposition: Japan was allied with the British. Finally, the infusion of British propaganda into the United States riled Hearst: as a master propagandist himself, he hated to see an adversary succeed.

Not Especially Pro-German

Although he took pleasure in German beer, castles on the Rhine, and the therapeutic waters at Bad Neuheim, Hearst had never shown particular political sympathy for the Germans. He had even advocated making war against the kaiser when a German admiral insulted Admiral Dewey in Manila Bay. He hired a former New York Times correspondent, William Bayard Hale, and sent him to Germany but did not know that Hale was in the pay of the Germans. Critics charged that he took his determinedly unpopular and, after 1917, when the United States declared war, unsafe position in order to attract German American and Irish American readers. While it is true that these groups bought his papers in greater numbers during the war, overall Hearst lost a fortune because of his diehard stand.

Let Them Come to Us

Once President Wilson declared war, Hearst took his most bizarre position. Since England would surely lose, he said, the United States should not act simply as an adjunct to the British armies. He argued that to transport an army across the Atlantic, infested with German submarines, was to consign it to the bottom of the sea. "Let Germany come to us," he said, "or it will be a bloody sacrifice." Theodore Roosevelt branded Hearst "one of the most efficient allies of Germany on this side of the war" and stressed that the "Huns within" were more dangerous than the "Huns without."

Pilloried in the Press

The New York Tribune began a weekly series titled "Coiled in the Flag—Hears-s-s-s-t," likening the publisher to a snake and quoting from his editorials. Roosevelt denounced President Wilson for failing to use the power of the government to suppress the Hearst papers. A mob in Poughkeepsie burned copies of the New York American. To fight back, Hearst took advertisements in rival papers listing "What Hearst Papers Have Done to Help Win the War." In 1918 he invited 250 senators and congressmen to New York at his expense to witness a demonstration on 4 July of his patriotism, but only thirty-four legislators and their families accepted the invitation.

A Loan or a Bribe?

Shortly after the war ended, it was revealed that a consortium of thirteen wealthy German American brewers had loaned Arthur Brisbane, Hearst's close ally and editor, $375,000 in 1917 so that he could purchase the Washington Times. A congressional investigation ensued to determine if Brisbane, and by extension Hearst, had been paid to act as the mouthpiece for these investors. The Times coverage of the war had paralleled that of the Hearst papers. When asked by a congressman if Germans dictated the content of the Hearst papers, Brisbane replied that nobody could tell the sovereign publisher what to print. Hearst's willingness to take wildly unpopular positions seems to bear this out.