Previous | Next
34353637383940414243444546474849505152535455 of 512
discussion, most of which, oddly enough, dealt with the U.N. question and not the
recognition question. But of course these things are related.
The specific editorial was not written by me and the particular circumstance under which it
came in -- it sort of came in without any immediate prior discussion. The day before, for
instance, we hadn't discussed the thing, but it just came in. And since this was very much
the kind of thing that I wanted the Times to do, we did it.
I gather, then, there had been, as you say, a tremendous amount of prior discussion and
a tremendous amount of, shall we say, of your convincing the higher-ups that this should be
I can't say whether I convinced or wore down, but this is a little confusing because
really most of the discussion dealt with the U.N. rather than with recognition. And when
the recognition question came up, I found really to my surprise that this piece was accepted
without any difficulty. And since this is a completely confidential statement now, I think a
very important part of this would be left out if I did not state that when this editorial
appeared it was with the complete agreement of all the people concerned. There was no
disagreement at all, either expressed or unexpressed, I'm sure of that. And this represented
quite a considerable move. And when I say “all concerned,” I mean all concerned,
everybody, including the editor emeritus, who was my predecessor, very emphatically.
Does this imply that sooner or later there will be another editorial on the U.N. question?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help