Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187 of 512

Looking at contemporaries, like the Washington Post, Monitor, Wall Street Journal, other leaders in journalism, Los Angeles Times, do you see this same problem as prominently? Of course, you don't see it as close up.

No, I certainly don't, because I read the Times, and always have, very, very closely. And I don't read any other paper with anything like the care that I always spend on the Times, care and time. But in my view, the Washington Post, which I guess is the paper that we most normally do read and compare our own work with - I think that this exists also in the Post, and I think it exists, as far as I can see, in most papers. Even good papers, in varying degrees. I think all of them would agree in principle that one shouldn't allow what I call editorialization into the news columns, but I think that it does exist quite frequently, in all of our good papers, and of course even more so in the poorer ones.

Now, you know, I don't want to sound as dogmatic as I probably sound on this. I alluded to this. But I think it's worth emphasizing that many newspaper editors, news editors, including the very ones that I've mentioned on the Times, simply perceive editorialization in the news differently, feel that what I consider to be editorialization isn't editorialization.

Sometimes there's a fine line between interpreting and -

That's correct. That's only fair. And I'm sure that they would all say, if asked about this or asked about my screaming about it, that I was a fanatic on the subject, and that where I saw editorialization, they felt really this didn't exist. As a matter of fact, in