Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307 of 512

Mobil type of advertising. But Mobil of course has always done it. In the first place, they originated it and they've done it much more than anybody else, and I want to say to you emphatically that my opposition has not been based on the argument that we should not print that kind of advertising, because I think that we have an absolutely obligation to print editorial-type advertising, as long as it's labeled that way, no matter how much opposed it is to my ideas, which most of the Mobil advertising is. That is not the issue at all. I'm very, very emphatic about that. But I felt that the Op-Ed page is the one place where such advertising should not be allowed to appear, that type of advertising, because what it meant was - and I've even had memos on this and all that, a point I've made very strongly and repeatedly to the publisher, and was absolutely turned down on - I felt very much and still do that by printing editorial-type advertising on the Op-Ed page, we cannot answer the charge that “one can buy his way onto the Op-Ed page,” in an opinion sense, because that is precisely what Mobil has done: they've bought their way onto the Op-Ed page.

Do they have to pay a premium rate to get that?

They certainly do. They certainly do. And to me, this is an awful thing. I have the concept that the advertising, if we have to have it, and as I say I'm quite reconciled to the idea of having advertising, should have been entirely institutional-type adverting. I mean, if it just said, “Mobil” you know, great -

It would be typographically acceptable as well as -