Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151 of 512

Well, if we had constant clashes-that is, if the editor (namely myself, and I take myself as an example but I have a whole editorial board to work with, of course) and my advisors constantly were taking a different position from that of the publisher and his advisors, whoever they may be-then I would feel that I would be in a position that I should not retain and I should not be the editor of a paper in which I was in constant disagreement with the publisher. Remember, I fully recognize that the publisher is the final authority on the paper. I don't think the paper could run without that kind of understanding. On the other hand, I don't expect the publisher to be looking over my shoulder every minute, or at least interfering or trying to make changes in the daily operation of the page. Let me state very emphatically that he is not doing so. But this is the issue that was involved partly in the problems that we had, and he's not doing so. So, in answer to your question, I would say that if there were disagreements on this middle ground, this would be the very area that I would feel I should get off and somebody else more in tune with the publisher's views should come in. But this is not even remotely indicated in the situation as I have experienced it for three years-either with the previous publisher or with the present publisher. We do agree. What nuances in change that there might be, that I might make myself, I have no problem with insofar as the publisher goes. So all I can say is that this is the essence of being the editor of a paper such as this It would be impossible to be the editor of the Times editorial page if one were in constant disagreement with the publisher or vice versa. But since this isn't the case, and since I hear from him on given editorials since the crisis of a few weeks ago very little, and think that that situation will continue, I think that the implication that you're making just really doesn't exist, if I understand your question.