Q: What about the Dan Schorr situation at CBS? Was that mishandled?

A: Well, in a way...only in the sense that the kind of publicity surrounding it was wrong. I don't know whether you agree with me or not, but the truth of the matter is that there are two Dan Schorr cases. One is the freedom of press issue, and there's no question at all that CBS fully supports Dan Schorr. We're going to go all the way; there's no question he had the right to get the document, that he had the right to publicize the document, as far as we're concerned...our executives...are I gather, prepared to go to jail to protect sources. The second part of the question is Dan's giving it, or selling it, although I don't think that's the big issue, giving it to the Village Voice without having cleared that with CBS. That's a question that CBS has said will be settled after the first; we don't want to confuse the situation.

Q: You don't think there's an issue with the sale of the document to the Village Voice? There was a contribution, I believe...

A: Yeah, well I read all that stuff. I kept up with that one pretty closely because it affects the freedom of the press and ethics and a lot of other things. I don't know fully what the truth of that thing is; I can't make up my mind what the truth is, with the facts I've got, which are none that you don't have. It sounds to me, I think, that the truth is what has been published; Dan didn't really want to cash in on it personally, and on the other hand, didn't see why some publisher should cash in on it.

Q: Do you personally expect Schorr to be back working for CBS at some point in the future?

A: I hope so; I'll certainly put it on that basis. Whether I expect him to or not, I don't know. I think it's 50-50, but for gosh sake, that's a personal opinion. I'm not an executive at CBS, I will not in any way sit on the Dan Schorr case. I was very offended that some columnist...said that if I had lifted my little finger that Dan Schorr would still be working at CBS. Well, he is still working for CBS technically; he's still getting his salary. But that is misreading my role and my power.

Q: Do you read the alternative press? What kind of service does it render?

A: It renders a very good service; I'd like to see more of it. I'm all for advocacy journalism as a counter-influence. I do not believe that it's a substitute for factual, objective journalism...I don't see how it's any substitute at all for that--if you had nothing but advocacy journalism, where would the advocates get the facts with which to advocate? It's a compliment [to conventional journalism] and I'm glad we have it. I think there should be considerable care used by the alternative press to be certain that in advocating they do not go into falsehood.

Q: The alternative press tends to treat issues that the mass media largely ignores...

A: ...the interesting thing with the networks is, of course, that we keep forgetting: this is the first time we've ever had a truly national press...we are in the position here in 24 minutes of covering the world. We can't keep our focus on these things, like gay rights, even though we may be interested in them. I think it's something that should be exposed, that we should be talking about...once every ten months we get a piece on, that some development is prominent enough for us to give it attention. But we can't keep on after that thing.

Q: Is it fair to say that the evening news is but an introduction to the news?

A: It's a guide--a guide to your world that day. We also have the capability of introducing people and places in a form that can't be done by anybody else...this is our particular value. You know who your leaders are, who the opposition is, the people who are affecting your world. And the same thing is true of distant people and places--we know something about Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, we have a feel for Israel and Lebanon that we wouldn't have if television didn't exist. We also have this capacity of commanding the attention of people who do not or cannot read...

Q: Isn't that a source of great power?

A: Oh yes, I think it's the great source of unrest in the cities in the Sixties. We were not intending to be a revolutionary force, it wasn't a goal for us to say let's go out and see if we can get the people to rise against the misery of the inner city. But on the other hand, it did excite increased expectations which are not a direct function of the news but of television generally, and then, in the news, the fact that the people saw that there were people interested in their problems, that they weren't alone...I think these things all helped to sponsor the movement in the streets.

Q: Are you a political neuter? There must be a certain pressure on anyone in your position to obliterate any public partisanship?