"The organic act which lies back of the work college editors are doing provides for the gathering and dissemination of information. It was never intended that public funds should be used for "institutional promotion," "propaganda," "press-agenting," "space-grafting," "publicity," "self laudation," "selling" or call it what you will. If "institutional promotion" - to give it the benefit of the least obnoxious designation - comes as a "by-product" of news and helpful information, there's no harm done. But an item aimed to benefit the institution rather than the person who reads that item is not only subversive to the purposes of the college, but is also subversive to the interests of the so-called "by-product." The college has no mandate to work the newspapers; yet it has a sufficient warranty to work for its readers."
Raises eight questions for ACE members: " 1) Are we glorified clerks or are we scientists? 2) What are desirable forms of publication and information materials? Scientists are demanding longer bulletins. The public is calling for shorter. 3) What should be the professional training of men and women to become agricultural and home editors? One school suggests that all that is needed in our fields is a certain facility -- we are engaged in a science -- home scientists measure success by acceptance in AP and UP. 4) Is there opportunity for research in the field of farm and home editing? 5) What is to be the future of agriculture and what leadership will the college of agriculture, the experiment stations, and the USDA be called upon to give? Together with our institutions, we must begin long-time planning. 6) What place has and will the radio have in carrying to the people the results of research? 7) How shall we measure results in our field? 8) What are we going to do about it?"
