Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 of 512

improper for them to be editorializing in the news columns, but he also felt that it wasn't being done. I felt it was being done. Conversely, he felt that we were editorializing too much on the editorial page, which of course was exactly opposite of my feeling, which was that editorializing was exactly what we should do. Then this, I think, may explain a basic, to put it mildly, uneasiness between these two executives, myself and Rosenthal, during the whole operation. Really unresolved, an unresolved problem which comes out really quite clearly also in the Argyris book, Behind the Front Page, which you were about to ask me about.

Yes. Well, that ties in very nicely with that. I wondered if you could give us, since this is a memoir that's going to be closed, certainly these sections of it -

It certainly is going to be closed (but not forever!). I should say so. I wouldn't -

- a reading on identification, in other words, of some of the people in here. First of all, I wanted to ask you something about - something I found very striking in the preface here, in which he says, “It's doubtful that a newspaper or any organization can develop effective self-examination processes if its personnel holds these pessimistic attitudes about change,” and then goes on to suggest that since the Daily Planet had shown itself incapable of change, “one question that I hope this book raises is whether newspapers should be protected if, by their own admission and behavior, they are not capable of creating an open learning system within their own boundaries.” By protected, I assume he means the protection that is afforded by the First Amendment?