Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319 of 824

Was the actual--was the influence of his political thinking as great on the publications as Luce's had been on the publications, even though the politics might have been a little different? Or had--

He didn't overtly attempt to have very strong views about political matters. He had views, obviously, and his views changed--see Vietnam, where we moved from being very gung ho to saying, “Let's get out.” He had strong views, obviously, about Watergate, and called for Nixon's resignation, I guess it was, or impeachment--I forget which. But he didn't follow any particular party line. While having views, they were not all of a certain shape.

His silences were sometimes more effective than anything he said. He had a way of sort of implying that somebody was pretty dumb by a very long silence. [laughter]

[laughter] A very effective means.

It is very effective. Oh, yes, it absolutely terrified people.

But whatever his political views at a given moment, were they as strongly influential on the particular M.E.'s--managing editors--or in the Donovan regime--as Luce's had been--or in the Donovan regime, were the magazines more a reflection of the particular managing editors' viewpoints, as opposed to the editor-in-chief?