« PreviousContinue »
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, you said there were some local managers that you gave pretty much of a free hand.
Mr. DIETZ. Oh, yes. Řes. I think you would understand, a fellow like Carter Barron here, who knows a great deal; I respect his judgment as you do. Senator CLARK of Idaho. But
say at all as to what advertising shall be placed in the papers of a given
Mr. Dierz. Only to the extent that we have described.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Suppose Mr. Crull or one of your managers wrote you and suggested to you that the advertising be dropped from the Nashville Banner; ordinarily would you take his word for it?
Mr. DIETZ. Well, I would certainly want to see-to hear his reason; yes.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. To hear his reason?
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes. And of course the publisher of the newspaper signs his contract directly with the representative from your office; is that right?
Mr. Dietz. No; he signs directly with the representative of an advertising agency.
Senator Clark of Idaho. Of an advertising agency?
Mr. DIETZ. Which gets commissions from his paper for getting our advertising.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Oh, I see. Yes. Now, does the local theater owner do any other advertising other than that you have described ?
Mr. DIETZ. A local theater owner may, because the local theater may have other things besides what I am advertising.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Loew's Theater, not Loew's pictures?
a vaudeville act or something, where he might have a cooling system.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. So that your point is, in conclusion on this subject as far as I am concerned, that your local manager did this thing, in substance, but he acted without authority?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir. But I would like to add this. I mean I feel very keenly about this: That I don't like to cast aspersions on this theater manager, even though you might get that implication. I must stress in this particular case the overzealousness of the man in the light of an emotional situation that was created by a piece of copy that he saw and which he felt as deeply about as I but did not understand the proper course of action.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, he did not know Mr. Thalberg, did he?
Mr. DIETZ. Oh, everybody in the company knew Mr. Thalberg, and everybody in the company-or, if he didn't know him, he was a figure; he was a symbol for us.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes. But you do not know how long he had even been with the company, do you?
Mr. DIETZ. No. I don't attribute any emotions to him whatsoever, and I didn't say that. It is perfectly possible that those were his emotions, and I would be inclined to believe they were.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. And of your best knowledge you did nothing about it; you think you must have called the theater department, and that is ali ?
Mr. DIETż. I think that for the record it might be said that anything that would protect the integrity of our actions would be a course that I would have taken under such circumstances.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Then Fidler's untruth in this particular piece of testimony lies solely in the fact that he had Mr. Crull and yourself mixed up in this instance?
Mr. Dietz. No; because Mr. Fidler made the statement that I wrote to every one of his papers.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes; but I say in the Nashville incident he mentioned.
Mr. DIETZ. Oh, there is no question that Mr. Fidler must have gotten wind of something going on in Nashville or he wouldn't have brought this out.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. I understand, but, now, his only error in his testimony
Mr. DIETZ (interposing). But that is a big error, I mean.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, now, wait. It may be a big error, but the only error in his testimony as regards the Nashville incident was, substantially, that he confused you with Mr. Crull?
Mr. DIETZ. Well, I suppose.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes. Now, let us get to any other newspapers. Has any other incident of this kind been brought to yourI am going to come to the Los Angeles Times. Let us leave out the Los Angeles Times for a moment, but aside from the Los Angeles Times, has any other incident come to your knowledge of a local manager or any of the employees of Loew's, Inc., threatening to withdraw advertising from a local newspaper?
Mr. DIETz. I don't recall any incident of the kind.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You do not know whether Mr. Crull undertook to write any other newspapers, do you?
Mr. DIETZ. No, I don't.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. You know of no other incident in the industry—that is, in your industry, in Loew's, Inc., that you can recall ?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. Now, let us come to the Los Angeles Times. Did you ever talk to Mr. Norman Chandler about Mr. Fidler's column?
Mr. DIETZ. Never.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Now, Mr. Schenck said this morning that you were here to give us the details, as nearly as you could, of the Los Angeles Times incident. He said you said it had been settled peace
ably, or words to that effect. Mr. Fidler stated in his testimony under oath, as Senator Tobey says, that Mr. Warner, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Mayer, and others had an interview with Mr. Norman Chandler and possibly members of his staff, in which they threatened to withdraw advertising if Fidler's column was not either dropped or censored. Were you present at any of those conversations?
Mr. Dietz. No, sir, I wasn't. My office is in New York, although I visit the studios quite often.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right, then. Well, then, have you talked with any of those people about such an occurrence?
Mr. DIETZ. Yes; I have. Senator CLARK of Idaho. With whom have you talked ? Mr. Dietz. I talked to Howard Stricking, and I talked to Louis B. Mayer.
Senator Clark of Idaho. What did Mr. Mayer tell you about that situation ?
Mr. Dietz. Well, in the first place, there is a misstatement. I don't know of any situation that relates to Fidler. Let us get that clear. I don't know of any-I know of dissatisfaction with Fidler's columns, as I have expressed, but I don't know of any action that had to do with Mr. Fidler that could have any bearing on this particular thing, except that very incidental bearing of Mr. Fidler's column appearing. Now I will let you develop it.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, I am going to develop it. “Except that very incidental problem of Mr. Fidler's column appearing.” Of course, that may or may not be incidental, depending upon what weight you give it.
Mr. Dietz. Yes; that's right. Senator Clark of Idaho. Now, what did Mr. Mayer tell you about his conversation with Mr. Norman Chandler?
Mr. DIETZ. Well
Senator CLARK of Idaho. As regards withdrawing advertising from the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Dietz. Now, first, I think it is a fair statement to say advertising was ever withdrawn from the Los Angeles Times.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Well, now, wait a minute, then. If that is a fair statement let us analyze it, and then we will go on. that the advertising was not withdrawn. Do you mean to imply by that statement that it was no cut down to the contract minimum? Mr. DIETZ. Contract minimum? Contract minimum? You see Senator CLARK of Idaho. Now, that is a simple question.
Mr. DIETZ. I understand. I know. I am not going to do anything but try to clarify it for you. I am not confident of what our contract minimum is with the Los Angeles Times. Bear in mind
Senator CLARK of Idaho. I am not talking about your contract. I am talking about Mr. Mayer's contract.
Mr. DIETZ. Bear in mind-Mr. Mayer has no contract with the Los Angeles Times.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. I see.
Mr. DIETZ. Bear in mind that only recently the whole system of doing advertising in Los Angeles has undergone certain alterations. Prior to a couple of months ago the advertising in Los Angeles was never bought directly by distributors such as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
It was purely a local theater matter. That is, if a local theater had booked a picture from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and was going to play that picture locally, that theater would then advertise in the papers.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. I understand.
Mr. DIETZ. Now, quite often it is true that we made a certain partnership with a theater to augment his appropriations in advertising. Recently, in order to obviate this roundabout way of placing advertising because of a local rate situation, the Los Angeles papers agreed to give what they call national companies—to give them the benefit of what approximated a local rate; and it was then and only then that direct action on the part of advertising managers such as I took place.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. Then let us put it this way. I do not mean to be disparaging about what you have said. It is very interesting. But
Mr. DIETZ (interposing). No. It has a bearing as you will see.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes, but now. Did Loew's, Inc., reduce the linage or inches or however you want to measure the advertising in the Los Angeles Times after this conversation between Mayer and Warner with Chandler ?
Mr. DIETZ. No; I don't believe so.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. What did Mr. Mayer tell you they did do, then?
Mr. Dietz. I think that advertising linage was not withdrawn, but it was not as happy for the Los Angeles Times, let us say, prior to the conversation.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Oh.
Senator Clark of Idaho. Well, it was not withdrawn. Would you want to say it was not as much?
Mr. DIETZ. No; I wouldn't want to put any inflection on this, but
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Was there less advertising than before or after the conversations?
Mr. DIETz. Before or-less advertising than when, that is?
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Was there less advertising by Loew's, Inc., in the Los Angeles Times after the conversations which we have referred to between Mayer and others and Mr. Norman Chandler and his staff.
Mr. DIETZ. I think there may have been.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Schenck said you knew. Now, do you know or do you not know?
Mr. DIETZ. I do know, yes; but the point about it is that the Los Angeles Times is a very reputable, distinguished paper. It is one of four or five, possibly five papers in Los Angeles, and the space is not always uniform in all papers.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. But you said
Mr. DIETZ (interposing). I mean it requires very definite refining, this remark, this line of inquiry. That is the reason I am being very particular about that.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. Was there less advertising in the Los Angeles Times by Loew's, Inc., after these conversations than before?
Mr. DIETZ. Well, the conversations were very recent.
Mr. Dietz. The conversations were very recent, and I would be a little bit pressed to tell you exactly what advertising has been placed in the Los Angeles Times since, because of several factors: One, I don't know, for instance, at this moment, what picture is running there, at this particular moment. If I were in my office I would know. It is not of any importance. I mean I could name any picture which would serve as an example. Depending, however, on what picture was to be run, I would then decide how much advertising is to be run.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. That is it.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes; but it varied downward after these conversations, did it not?
Mr. Dietz. Varied ? No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. Dietz. That I cannot say, because the conversations were recent, and I cannot recall exactly what advertising was placed in the Los Angeles Times. Very likely it increased.
Senator Clark of Idaho. Very likely it did ?
Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will determine that, of course, by figures.
Mr. Dietz. I mean, for the sake of this point I will accept your point. I will accept that it did increase; I mean, just so that there is no doubt of this testimony.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. Now, what did Mr. Mayer tell you about those conversations that he had with Mr. Warner, Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Stricking ?
Mr. Dietz. Well, now, let's try to create a little more of the picture. Senator TOBEY. Oh, no.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. Please, now, Mr. Dietz, let us try to obtain the conversation between you and Mr. Mayer. That is all we are interested in at this moment. Then you may explain as you may see fit. What did Mr. Mayer tell you about these conversations at which he was present with Mr. Norman Chandler and/or his staff?
Mr. DIETZ. Mr. Mayer told me that he had conversations with Messrs. Chandler, father and son, and that Mr. Chandler and he discussed various news relationships with the paper, and that Mr. Chandler was reasonably convinced that Mr. Mayer's point was a good point, and from that point on there was no disagreement or dissatisfaction between them.
Senator CLARK of Idaho. What was Mr. Mayer's point, according to his conversation with you?
Mr. DIETZ. Well, there was a combination, and there was a history. The Los Angeles Times runs a great many columns in addition to a reviewing department. In the course of these columns the motion nicture is often subject to various types of criticism from all departents. It is a little bit unpleasant when a paper happens to hit a