Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307 of 512

Oh, sure. Sure. Oh, in fact once in the early days I kicked about the awful appearance of some of the advertising, just on typographical grounds.

You do enforce, it appears, typographic -

Generally speaking, 99 percent of the time, the adds do look perfectly acceptable typographically. But, the Mobil argument was one that simply was ignored. The only time we ever won an argument about the kind of advertising on the Op-Ed page was when Salisbury raised a question about the advertising of a foreign government, and in this case it happened to be the Republic of China (Taiwan), on the Op-Ed page. And he got much more excited about that than he ever did about any of the type of editorial advertising that I was talking about, which was strictly domestic. But in any case, Harrison just went into a tailspin on the idea of printing propaganda ads of Taiwan on the Op-Ed page, and I supported him on that. But, I supported him on that on the general principle that we shouldn't run opinion-type ads on the Op-Ed page, and I agreed, if from a foreign government, that may have been even more so - while totally defending the idea of running those ads elsewhere in the paper.

Harrison and I, I remember, went up to a conference with the advertising department once or twice on this subject. And this is the only point that we ever won. I suppose that that was - well, I don't know what the reason was. As to the advertising: it was a series of ads that were scheduled to run on the Op-Ed page by the Republic of China (Taiwan), and they