"the staff had to generate extra editorial material to wrap around all the ads."
If you get newspapers.com and look at the LA Times in the 70's, this is evident: many pages with one inch of article text at the top of a page full of ads, and the article goes on for 10-20 pages or more.
I picture the city editor making the "pulling taffy" gesture at his staff to get more words out of them :)
I did not know it was till in print so did a search.
>Garrett became editorial writer-in-chief and criticized the Roosevelt administration's support of the United Kingdom and efforts to prepare to enter what became the Second World War, and allegedly showed some support for Adolf Hitler in some of his editorials
Did not know this, it said this may have cost it readers after WWII.
If we put aside the complexity of WWII, I think it's almost certain a fact that many readers died during the war. Of course pacifism or isolationism didn't work because the Axis powers attacked the US etc etc. But if your focus is soley on preserving readership, keeping them home and out of harms way is one way to accomplish it. At least for a bit.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to invoke that chain of reasoning. Helping out the UK was quite unpopular in the US and Churchill got quite frustrated with Roosevelt about the latter's hesitancy to provide assistance as a result. That the editor of a popular magazine might honestly share that take is unsurprising.
And, yes, hesitancy to get involved could shade into Germany's not that bad fairly easily by way of justification.
If you get newspapers.com and look at the LA Times in the 70's, this is evident: many pages with one inch of article text at the top of a page full of ads, and the article goes on for 10-20 pages or more.
I picture the city editor making the "pulling taffy" gesture at his staff to get more words out of them :)