Previous | Next
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 of 512
European part was dropped. My interest in what I did in the American part, which was
what I did write, was in the influencing of the handling of the news and also in the
inadequacy of its handling, the influencing by the point of view of the paper. I guess this
both was a cause and a reflection of my own interests, even then and certainly since, in the
distortion of news and in how papers can really twist or give incorrect impressions of what's
happening through presentation which is fashioned in accordance with their own editorial
opinion, which is a subject that I guess I am hyped on because I am so against it.
Would it be fair or true to say that actually you went into this with a preconception that
American newspapers did allow their editorial policies to color their coverage?
Oh, I certainly couldn't deny that. I'm sure that I probably did because after all
growing up with the New York Times background that I did--I suppose I ought to say here
that not only my father but his brother, my uncle, was even more closely connected to the
Times because he was actually the publisher of the Times.
Your uncle, Mr. Ochs?
Yes, that's right. I suppose that that's relevant to this discussion, otherwise I
wouldn't bring it in. I simply grew up from my first consciousness with the idea that a good
newspaper should be as objective as is humanly possible and this was sort of, almost a by-
word in my family and I'm sure it affected my whole view of newspapers very deeply and
has ever since; it still does. So I suppose that I had that preconception, yes.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help