Previous | Next
501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549 of 755
interpretation of it at the time. And I--it's just too far back for me to give you the details of
But we did agree to it, and all the correspondents for print as well for electronics all agreed
to the same thing--that they had to get clearance through the military in order to report
Although certainly the print journalists got around some of those--I mean, did not
follow some of those protocols. I'm thinking of [David] Halberstam.
That's right. It's a nice line--or not a “nice” line--it's a difficult line to follow
between what the judgement of the military is as against what the judgement of the
correspondents is. And never having been a correspondent I can only talk about it as a
second-hand experience. God knows, I guess my record is pretty clear on supporting the
openness of the journalistic process.
Absolutely. In terms of some of the things that happened at CBS during that period,
there was a bit of a stir created at CBS in 1966, when the George Kennan testimony was
not televised as part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proceedings, and “I Love
Lucy” reruns were shown instead. Do you remember that? Fred Friendly, I think,
resigned over that incident. Do you recall that incident?
If we're talking about the--this had to do with the dustup that Friendly got
involved in about--I think, looking back on it--and certainly I felt this way at the time--that
Fred was being overly dramatic about it, because what we were willing to do, at the time,
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help