Previous | Next
565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 of 512
I take it pressure was put on before the withdrawal; in other words there was an
indication that this would happen if something -- Is this the fact, or was it a withdrawal
after the fact?
I think that I have to say that's a very good point and I think that really in this
case the withdrawal took place, the angry letter from this cigarette manufacturer, who I
repeat was a very, very close and intimate personal friend of the then publisher, Mr.
Dryfoos, came after a number of stories and a few editorials appeared. I do not really know,
and I don't remember whether he had issued warnings prior to this; he may well have,
although I'm not able to state that, I'm not sure. In any case, the withdrawal - it was
called the suspension of the contract which they temporarily canceled, but it was
permanent in the way it turned out - they canceled a whole succession of important ads.
But, in a sense, even if I'm right in my memory and there were no prior threats, this of
course was pressure anyway, because the implication was clear: if you will quit getting
after us cigarette people, we will come back into the paper. That was a very clear
implication, even if there had been no prior warning of the actual action.
We have been in favor of better control of the drug industry and I've had the ethical drug
houses down my throat and on my neck ever since we have done this. We receive them
courteously and all that, but they absolutely have no effect on the editorial page. The
editorial page obviously has some effect on them because they react very, very rapidly.
Labor unions, too. The National Maritime Union is always mad at us because we very
frequently criticize their actions.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help