Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202 of 824

--and the chairman. Am I totally mistaken in thinking that the reason for--at that point in the last 1960s, when it was clarified that the editor-in-chief would theoretically only report to the board--was that also just as a kind of an ultimate protection for the editor? That, you know, he had recourse to the Board if you weren't being--

I suppose there was that in it. I think it was as important symbolically as it was anything else. And I think that was more the point that was trying to be made--that the editors were not subservient to the business people.

Just tell me if I'm wrong. Was there a church-state problem when--I think it was 1961--there was an article in LIFE about the Christian anti-communist crusader Frederick Schwarz, and C.D. Jackson, as you probably recall, went out to the Hollywood Bowl to apologize at one of their meetings? Was that it--

Yes. Well, that's not exactly the way to characterize it. What it was was a real misstep, namely, we should never have published the piece, and he should never have gone out and apologized.

In other words, he just made the decision himself to go out and apologize?