The feel of a newspaper

by YankeeJim | June 26, 2011 at 05:09 am

71 views | 2 Recommendations | 0 comments

The Proofreader

When I was in high school, I was fortunate to have picked up a part time job as a proofreader at a printing company. (I know that may sound hard to believe because I make many typos.) But, then I had a dedicated purpose.

The company was Duplex Printing on Hudson Avenue in Columbus Ohio. The President was Joe Barnes, though his mother was a CEO-type who watched over the operation too. They had another elder manager there who I think had a hand in publishing operations. He wore a felt hat and always wore a suit and tie, and smoked a cigar, a real “newspaper” man.

Joe was more like an editor/accountant. He wore a green visor while in the office and sat an executive desk in an office with a desk lamp pouring over paperwork.

The office area in the company building was compact, though there was a large room with many tables and that is where I worked. Pressmen brought in press proofs and laid them out on tables. My job was to read them, including advertisements, looking for mistakes.

The big newspaper in town was the Columbus Dispatch and I dreamed about working for them someday. I lived in a town renowned for James Thurber too, and he would influence me fueling my desire to combine writing and art somehow.

At that point, focus was on the papers being brought to me all through the night. The pages had the odor of fresh ink and newsprint. Going down the hall toward the typesetter work area, the odor changed to that of melting lead and zinc. The Linotype machine was loaded with molten metal as the operator would type a headline that would result in a bar of cold type.

Typesetters worked the California Job Cases, pulling type of various sizes and setting in page blocks. I visited them, though this was discouraged by Mr. Barnes as he didn’t want them being distracted.

I had an official job in the typesetting room, however, and that was to sweep up at the end of shift, picking up metal scraps from the dark floor and placing them in the recycle bin.

While there, I wanted to see if I could learn to set type and operate the Linotype machine. The typesetters and machine operators were sensitive about my “playing around” because this was a union shop and these craftsmen took their work seriously.

After working with them awhile we developed a rapport and I was permitted to try some things under their watchful eye.

Because they were expert craftsmen, they didn’t make many mistakes. By the time pages got to me, they were 98% correct. I was going for the extra 2%, especially in advertising where if there was a mistake on the price of a can of beans that would hurt the retail grocery store customer.

To keep me alert during the night, sometimes the typesetters would reverse a word in a headline. They would make an error so obvious that I might overlook it. If that happened, they would point it out at the last minute before I approved the page. That didn’t happen often, but when it did, there was uproarious laughter.

When the big web offset presses were rolling, printing newspapers for rural communities throughout Ohio and West Virginia, I was sometimes asked to help as a “fly boy.”

A fly boy was one of several people who stood at the end of the press where the newspapers would come off after having gone through the folder. The papers had to be bundled for distribution. This operation had to happen quickly as the press poured out the paper.

I grabbed a stack and bundled them, then handed them off to the distributor who loaded them onto pallets and onto trucks.

In the process, I learned how to make a hat from newsprint. Flyboys wore newsprint hats so we could be easily recognized.

Back upstairs in the proof room, I had an old Remington typewriter that Joe said I could use if I wanted to write something at night.

That’s how I learned to type. That is where I got the inspiration to write. The entire experience is what makes me want to not just read a newspaper, but to hold it, and feel it and to rattle it to create an experience that only comes from newsprint.

In the NowPublic style of storytelling, we must bring in related news and information. So, let me share some related discoveries.

Coincidences – one thing leads to another

Joe Barnes

Does the name “Joe Barnes” ring a bell? How about Barnes and Noble? How about the founder of Oxford Press?

“The printing industry in Oxford developed in a somewhat haphazard fashion over the following century. It consisted of a number of short-lived private businesses, some patronized by Oxford University. But in 1586, the University itself obtained a decree from the Star Chamber confirming its privilege to print books. In the same year, Oxford University lent £100—a small fortune at that time—to a local bookseller, Joseph Barnes, to set up a press. Barnes produced many books now prized by collectors, including the first books printed at Oxford in Greek (1586) and Hebrew (1596), and Captain John Smith's Map of Virginia (1612). The Great Charter, secured by Archbishop Laud from King Charles I in 1632, increased the independence and latitude of the press, entitling the University to print "all manner of books," and approximately 300 books were printed before Mr. Barnes retired in 1617.”

Have you ever heard of Duplex Printing Company? Maybe if you are a legal scholar.

“U.S. Supreme Court DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. v. DEERING , 254 U.S. 443 (1921)

254 U.S. 443

DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO.
v.
DEERING et al.
No. 45.

Argued Jan. 22, 1920.
Decided. Jan. 3, 1921.

[254 U.S. 443, 446]   Messrs. Daniel Davenport, of Bridgeport, Conn., and Walker Gordon Merritt, of New York City, for appellant.

[254 U.S. 443, 454]   Messrs. Frank X. Sullivan, of New York City, and Frank L. Mulholland, of Toledo, Ohio, for appellees.

[254 U.S. 443, 460]

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a suit in equity brought by appellant in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for an injunction to restrain a course of conduct carried on by defendants in that district and vicinity in maintaining a boycott against the products of complainant's factory, in furtherance of a conspiracy to injure and destroy its good will, trade, and business-especially to obstruct and destroy its interstate trade. There was also a prayer for damages, but this has not been pressed and calls for no further mention. Complainant is a Michigan corporation, and manufactures printing presses at a factory in Battle Creek, in that state, employing about 200 machinists in the factory, in addition to 50 office employees, traveling salesmen, and expert machinists or road men, who supervise the erection of the presses for complainant's customers at their various places of business. The defendants who were brought into court and answered the bill are Emil J. Deering and William Bramley, sued individually and as business agents and representatives of District No. 15 of the International Association of Machinists, and Michael T. Neyland, sued individually and as business agent and representative of Local Lodge No. 328 of the same association. The Dis trict [254 U.S. 443, 461]   Council and the Lodge are unincorporated associations having headquarters in New York City, with numerous members resident in that city and vicinity. There were averments and proof to show that it was impracticable to bring all the members before the court and that the named defendants properly represented them; and those named were called upon to defend for all, pursuant to equity rule 38 ( 226 U.S. 659 , 33 Sup. Ct. xxix). Other jurisdictional averments need no particular mention. The District Court, on final hearing, dismissed the bill (247 Fed. 192), the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its decree (252 Fed. 722, 164 C. C. A. 562), and the present appeal was taken.

The jurisdiction of the federal court was invoked both by reason of diverse citizenship and on the ground that defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to restrain complainant's interstate trade and commerce in printing presses, contrary to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209. (Comp. St. 8820-8823, 8827-8830). The suit was begun before but brought to hearing after the passage of the Clayton Act of October 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 730. Both parties invoked the provisions of the latter act, and both courts treated them as applicable. Complainant relied also upon the common law; but we shall deal first with the effect of the acts of Congress.

The facts of the case and the nature of the relief prayed are sufficiently set forth in the report of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals. 252 Fed. 722, 164 C. C. A. 562. The case was heard before Circuit Judges Rogers and Hough and District Judge Learned Hand. Judge Rogers, although in the minority, stated the case and the pleadings for the court (252 Fed. 723-727, 164 C. C. A. 562), and delivered an opinion for reversal in which he correctly outlined (252 Fed. 734-737 164 C. C. A. 562) the facts as shown by the undisputed evidence-defendants having introduced none. Judges Hough and Hand followed with separate opinions for affirmance, not, however, disagreeing with Judge Rogers as to the facts. These may [254 U.S. 443, 462]   be summarized as follows:

Complainant conducts its business on the 'open shop' policy, without discrimination against either union or non-union men. The individual defendants and the local organizations of which they are the representatives are affiliated with the International Association of Machinists, an unincorporated association having a membership of more than 60,000, and are united in a combination, to which the International Association also is a party, having the object of compelling complainant to unionize its factory and enforce the 'closed shop,' the eight-hour day, and the union scale of wages, by means of interfering with and restraining its interstate trade in the products of the factory. Complainant's principal manufacture is newspaper presses of large size and complicated mechanism, varying in weight from 10,000 to 100,000 pounds, and requiring a considerable force of labor and a considerable expenditure of time-a week or more-to handle, haul, and erect them at the point of delivery. These presses are sold throughout the United States and in foreign countries; and, as they are especially designed for the production of daily papers, there is a large market for them in and about the city of New York. They are delivered there in the ordinary course of interstate commerce; the handling, hauling, and installation work at destination being done by employees of the purchaser under the supervision of a specially skilled machinist supplied by complainant. The acts complained of and sought to be restrained have nothing to do with the conduct or management of the factory in Michigan, but solely with the installation and operation of the presses by complainant's customers. None of the defendants is or ever was an employee of complainant, and complainant at no time has had relations with either of the organizations that they represent. In August, 1913 (eight months before the filing of the bill), the International Association called a strike at complain ant's [254 U.S. 443, 463]   factory in Battle Creek, as a result of which union machinists to the member of about 11 in the factory and 3 who supervised the erection of presses in the field left complainant's employ. But the defection of so small a number did not materially interfere with the operation of the factory, and sales and shipments in interstate commerce continued.”