Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 of 512

I phrased that backwards. The news department would, say, want to publish it, but would the management more or less allow it to go on because they felt that it was endangering the national security less if it were to avert the invasion, if you see what I mean?

I don't think editorially that I would even be consulted on such a matter. This is purely news department judgment and I don't think that they would want to recognize-I think they'd be right in not wanting to recognize-any editorial judgment in the sense that you're talking about. This is certainly nothing that would be contrary to the principles of the Times and I do not believe that we have failed in this one, and that is to use news stories for editorial purposes. Much as I regret what I think is the allowing of editorial comment to get into the news stories, I think, as I made a speech to you a few minutes ago, this has been done too much, I do not think that we have gone so far as to violate even a more fundamental principle which would be this one, which would be the principle of permitting news stories to be influenced by what you think the editorial judgment should be; that is, the actual publication of a news story be influenced by what you think is an editorial judgment. No, we don't do that. It seems to me that if we do that we would really be violating an even more fundamental principle than the other; that would be just using the news, real manipulation of the news. I don't think anybody down at the Times thinks that this is something to do. There are many papers that do do this, by the way, many, but I really don't think we do that, and I think everybody would agree that this would be a very bad idea.