Previous | Next
222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 of 512
important question in newspaper-court relationships ever since. Of course there have been
dozens of cases in the last ten years relating to this.
Well, I had a view that was a rather moderate one, in respect to the rights of the newspaper
to publish this kind of information. I always felt, while a very, very strong believer in
freedom of the press and freedom from any kind of censorship, I always felt that the Sixth
Amendment right, guarantee of a fair trial, was equally important, and it worried me that
there was a tendency on the part of the press, and I felt even of the New York Times
sometimes, to exceed the bounds of what we really should print, in regard to prospective
defendants. This of course deals almost entirely with criminal cases. It always worried me.
So in one, I believe probably the first time this issue arose in my regime, as editor of the
editorial page, was in the late sixties, when there was an occasion for us to do an editorial
on this issue. I do not recall the precise circumstances, but the date was December, 1969,
and the editorial that was drafted was entitled “Fairness on Trial,” which gives exactly the
gist of the controversy.
This was your own editorial?
This was an editorial that was proposed, that was intended to be published on the
editorial page, and I can't even say to you now that I myself had written it. I think I did. It
could have been written by one of my associates. But in any case, we would not have
written, I would not have published any editorial on this subject without giving the
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help