open Vault

, that the investment in any given item that is produced – whether it is a TV program or a Hollywood movie or a big mass magazine, any individual issue – is so such an enormous investment, that they must find a great denominator in terms of audience, whether it is the lowest common denominator or not. The risk is too, and ratings that they can get. That's right. The total cost of network broadcasting for a sponsor – this universal cross-country thing – is so fantastic, the necessity to get the greatest mass audience, that industries that can afford this, , and I suppose they feel that when you consider the mass audience there are certain limitations, certain criteria that they feel forced to apply to TV that do not apply to newspapers. Well, it's the sense of television, it's the sense

of the format. Now, many people are certainly familiar with your evening broadcast on radio. You run over the news, and then you do a powerful editorial piece at the end. I think that anyone who becomes familiar with the Murrow program knows that the piece at the end is his editorial. That’s one way, ? I think there is a real danger, and I think there is also a danger that we may get involved in semantics here, but let’s try it anyway if you’re agreeable. I do not regard the end five or six minutes that I do on radio as an editorial, and that requires a little explaining. I do not advocate action, that in most countries the radio and television operations are an accurate reflection of the political, social and economic climate in which they grew. And that if you compared, for example, the BBC in England and commercial broadcasting here, you would end up with a comparison between Britain and the United

! Well, now your special report on Africa was another great picture that I’m sure is remembered. This dealt, among other things, with the aspirations of the Negros and the way they’re treated in Africa. I wonder to what extent that encountered any banning in the South here. No problem, . Yes. Well, now just the other day, January 21, you did this program on the last class of 1959, that is the closed schools of Norfolk, Virginia. Pretty soon to have gotten complete reaction, but what sort of reaction, in the South particularly? Well, it’s a little early to tell what the reaction was in the South, but as an old and experienced and much wiser journalist than I am, you would agree I think, Mr. Lyons, that the real test of a program or a piece in print is whether people involved – those who live there – believe it to be a fair

and make the point that when you have a mass point of view, a generality in the point of view, you are bound to have that reflected in the press. There's no reason why...Look what happened during the recession. Everyone in April and May a lot of people were saying - or not everyone, but a lot of pe— were, . I get that impression from year-end reviews and so on. Well, look, year-end reviews are a happy time. I mean, New Year's celebrations are good times, and people feel good. If you notice, immediately after the New Year, a suggestion that a story ought to be on the front page, it's considered. I don't mean that it goes on the front page. And I'm sure that is true in certain of the papers in Boston, and certainly in Washington Post and other large papers. Dr

trouble holding up our end, well, that idea was just unthinkable. That's why Korea came as such a shock, and it's still a shock to pick up a paper or tune in the radio and hear that we may be on the brink of war again with China. How did we get in such a fix? Mr. Louis Lyons, I am addressing that question, broke. The Chinese had a way of chilling an egg and standing it on end so it stood up. It caught the imagination of all the editors in the USA. Any correspondent who filed the story about the egg standing on end got by-lines, got pictures, got a play across the country. If you did the difficult, important stories of the negotiations that were to lead to civil war, you got maybe one paragraph down at the end. Our editors and our publishers have to sell papers and make money. The really important interpretive stuff does not pull circulation; or at least most editors feel

? That's right. I remember an old buddy in Chicago years ago who came to an untimely end, Big Tim Murphy, a labor racketeer. He never liked reporters, and be used to say – give any punk $25 a week and a pencil and no man's reputation is safe, foisted off on the public by President Eisenhower personally and by Attorney General Brownell and now Rogers. And the press up to this point has not exhibited the fear that it should for this, because if our laws, passed by Congress, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue down to the other end, administer them as they please, spend the money as they please, you have executive dictatorship. And there's no kidding about it. Has the Moss committee ever told the Panama Canal Company to make public the names of the free

-Journal. In the early stages of this crisis most of these editorials seemed to be simply stating or trying to interpret what was happening, and ending with a "Let's be firm." I think perhaps, however, that Mr. Warburg may have overlooked the highly critical position of the Courier-Journal. Ever since the beginning, , even though we in the end may have rejected it, simply to encourage the Poles in something that to us and to them is very, very important – and that is that they should begin to develop an independent line, independent of the Soviet Union, an independent life in the international, in the international, . Well, thank you Mr. Daniel. It's refreshing to find the newspaperman turn critic of the newspapers, and Mr. Warburg, the critic, defending them. And I'm afraid we've come to the end of our time. Thank you, gentlemen. Only a half dozen of our greatest newspapers maintain

bargaining negotiations ended with peaceful settlements and only three percent of these negotiations resulted in any loss of work from strikes or lockouts. Yet I venture to say that in terms of the attention the newspapers gave our activities, 97 percent of the attention paid to us by the newspapers went, . We had not at that time. I have seen only two or three since our editorial. No newspaper in the country, so far as I know, commented favorably uh, on the fact that fewer strikes began last year than in any other year since the end of World War II. Uh, this was true as of almost three weeks after

of our daily newspapers." Our other guest has been a newspaperman for thirty-six years. He began as a reporter on the Portland Oregonian and ended as its publisher less than ten years later. Since 1946 he has been editor and publisher, . He doesn't have to worry about that rag across the street, which he could always use as an alibi for sensationalism, for instance. Mr. Hoyt, will sensationalism end? Does it tend to diminish in these good newspapers you've mentioned, when there's no longer any competition

of it yesterday and this morning when The New York Times broke the story about firing the Argus experiment in the South Atlantic. After sitting on it for six months. After sitting