Previous | Next
222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 of 512
that we had to reverse our position created quite a furor, at least on my part. I imagine it
was prompted by Black, because of the association. I don't know of any other particular
reason why Punch would have suddenly gotten interested in that.
And what this illustrates, if my surmise is true - nothing sinister at all, but a concern that
went on through my entire career as editor of the editorial page - my concern always about
the influence of outside directors of the Times. As I say, in this case I can't distinctly
remember whether Black was a director at that moment, but in any case, he was very close.
What worried me, and there were evidences, some of which I have referred to in previous
interviews, or what I felt were undue, improper pressures by outside directors, on the
management, on the position that the Times ought to take. I just felt, along with Adolph
Ochs, that the Times ought to be totally independent of every kind of outside pressure, and
of course, in Ochs' day, my uncle's day (Punch's grandfather), there were no outside
directors of the Times.
Right. What about the reverse?
Of course it's also true that the Times was not a publicly held company either, and
that obviously makes quite a considerable difference.
Right. What about the reverse? What about the Times people, the owners, taking
positions on the boards of other institutions?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help