Previous | Next
501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549 of 755
It's a different period now. Today you couldn't carry the budgets we carried in those days.
The conventions cost an enormous--the presidential campaigns put an extra heavy burden
on the news department, and that only came in four-year cycles. Then we had very
excellent, I thought, bureaus in the key parts of the world. But today you just can't afford
it. It's way too costly.
Now, could there be some kind of pooled effort in various parts of the world, so that each of
the three--or now four--networks didn't have to carry all the burden? I guess so, but never
was very happy with the thought. I thought it took all the competition, if you will--the
advantages of multiple points of view would be removed if you had a pool job, and it
seemed to me that a free press meant we ought to be free to go wherever we wanted to go
and cover as we wanted to cover. If we could afford to do it. But the people who are
running the networks now don't feel that they can do that.
But I don't think we ever--certainly to my knowledge we never said “Let's not do
something, because we can't afford it.”
Right. Which may be different today.
In terms of the reporting from Vietnam, did difficulties arise at times where reporters
got hold of somehow embargoed information, and how was that handled? I was thinking
particularly Maury Fromson's reports on the bases in Thailand. Could you discuss that a
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help