Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307 of 512

No, I don't recall. I really don't recall what the syndicated pieces are, that Rosenthal was referring to. I really don't. He was very unhappy about the More article, and he obviously felt that Argyris had talked too much, or at least claimed, Rosenthal felt, that Argyris had managed to give away too much of the identity of the characters. And I too wrote to Argyris saying that, “I must say that I did assume that you,” that's Argyris, “had talked with Rubin in an indiscreet way.”

And I went on to say - and I will now quote from this letter from me to Argyris - on November 18, 1974, again, coming out of this public interview, which of course identified the Times and identified me and Rosenthal and everybody else - and here I quote from my letter:

“There are some other things about both your book and the Rubin article that bother me, particularly the inference that the long delay in Op-Ed was simply the result of a 'power struggle' in which I had a leading part. If there was a 'power struggle,' I can tell you that I wasn't aware of it until the last phase of my long-drawn effort to persuade the publisher and the succession of managing editors that an Op-Ed page would be a major addition to the New York Times. During most of the period that I was advancing this idea I understood - perhaps mistakenly - that the only real block to introducing Op-Ed was the difficulty of finding alternative space for obituaries (then opposite the editorial page) and obtaining additional net news hole. I have to admit that in the latter stages I did become aware of opposition based on objection to my controlling the page. By that time, I had invested so much time, effort, energy and thought to this page that I certainly did not like the idea of