Previous | Next
8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512
change in management when Mr. Dryfoos became publisher, I think, was simply an
appalling and outrageous statement, and in very great contrast, incidentally, to a notice in
Newsweek at that time. More recently Time magazine's piece about the ten leading
American newspapers, which, of course, included the New York Times, it could hardly do
otherwise, but I felt it was so grossly inadequate as really to be, in effect, a sneer at the
Times, because all it talked about virtually was the volume of the Times.
Now, in all fairness, both Donovan and Heiskell vigorously deny this, and may point out a
few phrases here and there that would appear in the first section which are complementary
to the Times. There certainly was one article in Time a year or two ago that I must say was
extremely complimentary, but I have felt over the years this bias has generally been
Which one was that?
I'm trying to remember the specific piece. It was a piece on the New York press, as
I recall it, and it appeared about a year ago, and I was amazing that it was as friendly as it
was. This seemed to be the one startling exception in the many snide and unpleasant, and
I really feel, unfair remarks that Time has made about us over the years, and the two that
I've mentioned specifically to you, the one on the ten best papers and the one that appeared
when Mr. Dryfoos became publisher a few years ago. These were two outstanding examples
of the kind of thing, as well as being characteristic.
I don't want to make anything of this, but you asked me, and this was my feeling about it.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help