Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512

months ago, another of my colleagues was sent down to Cuba, who writes on Latin American affairs mainly, and he wants to keep up to date on Cuba in the editorial department, purely to get background information and be brought up to date on what was going on in Cuba. He made that trip entirely for editorial reasons.

In the Moscow journal, Arthur Sulzberger mentions over and over again, at the time he was there, of course, the censorship was still present and quite strong, and he was quite upset that his articles were not printed as an indication of censorship, and, of course, this was quite a long time ago. How do you feel about this problem?

That's a difficult problem. I personally do think that it would be desirable to indicate that such-and-such an article was passed by censor, or went through a censorship. Now, remember this area is now nothing that I'm directly concerned with as a newspaper executive, because this has nothing to do with editorials. This is a news question. However, I have a feeling that it would be a good idea to do this where censorship is pervasive. There are good arguments against doing this, because censorship is exercised in so many different forms in so many different countries, that, in a sense, it can almost be misleading to label some stories, say the ones from Moscow, for example, subject to censorship, and not label, let's say, stories from a country subject to censorship, when the fact is that although they might not actually pass through a censor in the way the Moscow stories did, they're very carefully read and the correspondent is subject to being thrown out if something that he has published in his paper displeases the country involved. So, this is a negative censorship, and certainly every correspondent who is subject to this is conscious of it and it cannot help but affect his writing. In a sense, it is a more subtle, and perhaps in