Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 of 512

for this kind of thing to be publicly identified as the New York Times, and this is what worried me, because I felt that much more would be made of it than was actually made, if it were identified as the Times - which of course it was, immediately identified.

Some of the reviewers identified it very clearly?

Yes, absolutely. But the only place that I know of that really went after it and made a full story of it was More magazine. Now, there were reviews, of course, but I don't recall that anybody else really played up the really quite fascinating conflicts and problems that were brought out in this book. I would have thought that they would have, especially as it was so clear that it was the New York Times. But to the best of my knowledge, practically nobody did, except More made a big to-do about it in an article in which they featured one of my conversations with the publisher, and quoted me, maybe slightly out of context, but nevertheless quoted me with quotes that I'm perfectly happy to have stand.

But I sure wouldn't have thought it would have been a good idea from the Times' point of view.

We've decided to [inaudible]. Some of the other identifications are perfectly evident. P is Punch.

P is Punch or the president, as he calls him, that's Punch Sulzberger. This is all trying to do a Rosetta Stone on that, about the Daily Planet.