Previous | Next
8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512
pro-Eisenhower pieces that we had-and I must say that we really had very few after
that-would not have been written by me. In other words, there was no question at all that
if I didn't want to support Eisenhower, I certainly wasn't under any compulsion to, as a
member of the editorial board.
2However, when the editorial announcing the Times' support for Eisenhower (vs. Stevenson) was decided upon
(by publisher and editor), I was asked by Merz (the editor) if I cared to write the pro-Stevenson part of the editorial,
explaining what a great person Stevenson was, and I readily complied. Thus the editorial had a pro-Stevenson
Another question comes to my mind as far as the paper's own interest in things, such as
this lawsuit you had with these people in the south. What sort of a relationship is there
between the paper's own direct interest, editorials written, news coverage, etc.?
We, of course, have had a-what this suit was all about was the integration
question, which an ad [ran] attacking the segregationist policies of the city government of
Montgomery. Then the other suit involved basically the same thing in respect to
Birmingham, although the circumstances were different. The Times' editorial policy,
during the suit and after the suit, has been exactly the same. It has been against the
segregationists' policies, and in favor of integration.
Actually, I meant the coverage of the suit itself, and the editorial on the-
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help