It had run as a column - I had worked at the paper since 1976, but the column had been running for 13 years, and I think it was a strong column, criticizing the war when the paper was supporting it.
I don't pay any attention to what the 'Baltimore Sun' editorial page says about anything.
Editorials are editorials. They a supposed to have an opinion, even a very strong one.
Contrary to the claims of some of my critics and some of the editorial pages, I am an ardent believer in the free market.
Don't be dismayed by the opinions of editors, or critics. They are only the traffic cops of the arts.
If I saw Greeley, I would tell him that when I wanted the advice of a political editor in selecting generals I would call on him.
Horace Greeley was constantly writing editorials about who should be promoted in the army
For the most part, editors no longer view 'Doonesbury' as a rolling provocation, which is fine by me. It makes no sense to intentionally antagonize the very people on whose support you most depend.
As for editorial content, that's the stuff you separate the ads with.
The advertisements in a newspaper are more full knowledge in respect to what is going on in a state or community than the editorial columns are.
… there was partisanship in the newspapers …. Newspapers were not neutral. Newspapers were the political vehicle of a particular group and sometimes they were the cultural vehicle as well. It is also important to keep in mind that some of the newspaper editors were very friendly with … political leaders
The Constitution does not guarantee objectivity of the press …. The question … is not whether news shall be unprejudiced but rather whose prejudices shall color the news.
You read some columnists in the newspapers; you have to wonder who they are really working for. You can see they have an agenda.