Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151 of 512

I have discussed this issue with my predecessor, as a matter of fact, to see how he worked it out. His feeling is that this kind of disagreement over a specific issue is so rare that it is far better not to try to define the lines of responsibility, not to try to delimit the area in which one can operate and the other, because it would happen so rarely that you simply have to work it out on an ad hoc basis. I think this is undoubtedly good advice and probably the practical way to do it.

As I say, everything I have discussed with you I have discussed with Punch Sulzberger directly face to face in several long conversations. We've been completely amicable about it, but the question always remains as to the degree in which the editor has to be, let's say, supervised by the publisher.

Now, let me make a couple of very important points in this area of discussion of a paper. This whole question that I'm talking about would never arise on a paper that was run on a different basis from that of the New York Times, and this is the premise on which this whole discussion rests. In many newspapers the publisher is boss, the editor does what the publisher says, and that's it. So the issue wouldn't even arise. This is true of many, many newspapers. But on the Times-and on some other papers, too; I don't pretend that the Times is unique, but we're talking about the Times-the editor, the many in my position, has not only a sense of responsibility but a position of great independence and responsibility. I do not hold this job just as office boy for the publisher, and I'm not expected to either. The publisher doesn't expect me to. The difficulty of this problem is created by the very virtue of the position of editor of the editorial page of the Times, which