Previous | Next
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
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
In other words, he just made the decision himself to go out and
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help