Frank Gannett - Rivalry With William Randolph Hearst

Rivalry With William Randolph Hearst

William Randolph Hearst, another media magnate of the time, is often portrayed as Gannett’s rival. The pair’s rivalry came to head particularly in the 1920’s. Up until that point, Rochester had been monopolized by the Gannett Corporation while the Albany, NY newspapers were mostly under the control of Hearst. This changed in 1922, when William Randolph Hearst attempted to break into the Rochester newspaper business. This would prove to be highly unsuccessful, as it was reported that Hearst began losing $100,000 a year. To combat Hearst’s entrance to the Rochester newspaper business, Gannett brought the Knickerbocker Press and Albany Evening News in 1928. The Knickerbocker Press was circulated in the morning while the Albany Evening News was circulated in the evening and was a direct competitor of Times Union (Albany), Heart’s newspaper. By 1937, Gannett monopolized not only the Rochester newspaper business but the Albany one as well. It was at this time that Hearst and Gannett struck a deal. William Randolph Hearst would pull out of Rochester, where at one point he was bribing citizens with new cars in order to attract new customers. In exchange Gannett would consolidate the Knickerbocker Press and Albany Evening News into a single evening newspaper called the Knickerbocker Press. Hearst would then transfer the Times Union to the morning field unopposed. The deal would leave Hearst disappointed yet feeling wiser and sounder. Hearst felt “sounder because he was putting his financial house in order all along the line and had just concluded a constructive deal in Rochester and Albany, N. Y.”

Read more about this topic:  Frank Gannett

Famous quotes containing the words rivalry, william and/or randolph:

    “Sisters define their rivalry in terms of competition for the gold cup of parental love. It is never perceived as a cup which runneth over, rather a finite vessel from which the more one sister drinks, the less is left for the others.”
    —Elizabeth Fishel (20th century)

    “We agree fully that the mother and unborn child demand special consideration. But so does the soldier and the man maimed in industry. Industrial conditions that are suitable for a stalwart, young, unmarried woman are certainly not equally suitable to the pregnant woman or the mother of young children. Yet “welfare” laws apply to all women alike. Such blanket legislation is as absurd as fixing industrial conditions for men on a basis of their all being wounded soldiers would be.”
    —National Woman’s Party, quoted in Everyone Was Brave. As, ch. 8, by William L. O’Neill (1969)

    “a word too much repeated
    falls out of being”
    —Archie Randolph Ammons (b. 1926)