Previous | Next
422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472 of 512
editorial page during the '70s and before, also. But I think that, given the economic situation
of the Times in the early '70s, which wasn't extremely prosperous -- the Times was getting on
all right, of course, but it was running a very narrow margin of profit. And the pressures
exerted on Punch not only by one or two members of his board of directors of the Times, the
outside members, but also by what could be called Wall Street and the banking and financial
community in general, I think that I simply -- with my editorial staff as I had it then -- was
just running too liberal, too much what was perceived as an anti-Wall Street position. While I
repeat that Punch never expressed this to me -- and in fact, expressly disavowed the
possibility that there was anything wrong with the way I was running the editorial page at
the time -- I still think -- I really say this reluctantly, and I'm afraid that's why it's taking me
such a long time to say it, but I think the answer is yes, that this was certainly a strong
motivating cause of the need to, as he saw it, to have what turned out to be an almost clean
sweep not only of the editor of the editorial page but of the entire editorial board, almost
And certainly I think -- I think, really, one hundred percent perhaps -- maybe not quite --
within a year after my departure, I think the editorial board had changed if not a hundred
percent, almost to that degree. Does that answer your question?
It does. Thank you.
Is there anything else you'd like to say about this particular period?
I don't think so.
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help