Previous | Next
8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512
agreement that we would support Candidate X rather than Candidate Y. I'm now speaking
specifically of the top political offices.
In the lower offices, as I tried to make clear, the thing simply wouldn't be carried this far.
We would rely ninety-nine times out of a hundred on my own decisions. In the last
analysis, however, it is necessary to point out that the final decision, or at least the final
responsibility, as far as presidential candidates go, the final decision is the publisher's.
This is the way we've always operated, and we understand this is the only satisfactory way
we can operate.
Now, if I should end up in disagreement with the publisher, and this is a question
everybody wants to know, and we really couldn't agree on the man such as the presidential
candidate, I think the one thing that would be possible would be for the editor to take a
leave of absence or, a least, formally in some way, renounce any connection with the
opinions expressed in that particular area. Now, this has never happened, and it isn't very
likely to happen. People who generally think the same way are likely to agree on who are
the best candidates. On minor candidates, I'm sure they wouldn't bother about making any
great issue. Of course, on a presidential candidacy, in the last analysis, there is no doubt at
all who would win the contest between myself, as the editor, and the publisher. The
publisher would because his is the final responsibility. There's just no use my attempting
to pretend anything else, but, I would, under those circumstances, undoubtedly take a leave
or depart from the page temporarily.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help