Previous | Next
34353637383940414243444546474849505152535455 of 512
throwing Taiwan into the hands of Communist China. But this whole problem, I felt,
deserved re-examination by the Times, because our position, whether rightly or wrongly,
had always been interpreted as being a pretty closed support of Chiang Kai-shek and a flat
no to Communist China, in either respect, U.N. or recognition.
And I initiated some discussion. This, by the way, is the kind of policy that, of course, I
wouldn't dream of trying to put through on the editorial page without thorough discussion
with management. This is one of the major kinds of policy that really, of course, I could
discuss with management, and I wouldn't do it without management approval either.
So there was a lot of discussion during the summer, which I won't go into the details of,
almost entirely dealing, however, with the U.N. question. And the upshot was that we
didn't really get to a complete meeting of the minds on this. Although the Times's position
moved somewhat from what it had been, it didn't move as far as I would have liked it to.
But at least it moved some.
Then after the U.N. session I felt that we ought to -- or as the U.N. session went on -- I felt
that this issue really should be pursued somewhat further, and there were further
discussions. And one day this editorial that you asked me about came in to me from one of
the people in the editorial department. I felt that this was very much along the lines that I
certainly endorsed. I immediately sent it upstairs, which means to the management, which
in this case meant specifically Mr. Dryfoos and Mr. Sulzberger, and got an approval for it
and published it the next day, before anybody changed their minds. I really wanted to get
this through. This represented, in other words, sort of an outgrowth of a long period of
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help