Dear Jock: As I wrote to you on June twenty-seventh, I was astonished by the paragraphs in your letter of the twenty-third, quoting Helen Reid. That astonishment was all the greater because of the conversation I had had with Helen on the day succeeding your departure for London, in which she expressed herself as being completely bewildered by your termination of the negotiations affecting the Herald Tribune. At that time one reaction I had to your information was that any further effort on your part to save the Herald Tribune was probably useless. But the matter has continued on my mind--I cannot wholly forget it.1
Of course this affair is none of my business. But since I think it necessary to preserve sound and moderate government and that a successful Herald Tribune, operated under your political philosophy, could help to do this, I have concluded to write to you once more on the subject.
Having a belief in the potential value of your operation of the paper, I feel that possibly you should continue to explore every avenue that could lead to that end. Some of the thoughts I now entertain may have been previously considered and discarded by you. Nevertheless I present several observations or suggestions that may have some validity.
I am confident that, when you’ve finished your tour of duty in Britain you will want to do something that will truly appeal to you as a public service. There are a number of ways in which you can do this; one would be to take the responsibility of making the Herald Tribune a forceful voice in supporting the policies in which you believe.
One of my "second thoughts" has been this: I believe that Helen Reid did not fully understand that her message to you, delivered during your conference with Brown and Lee Hills just before your departure for London, would constitute a conclusive decision. She was, mother-like, expressing a hope or prayer affecting something that, with respect to her son, in her heart she knew to be impossible of fulfillment. She was voicing the ambitions of a troubled mother for her child--maybe also, her pride in him. She seemingly felt a personal anguish because those ambitions and that pride were obviously not fully shared by you.
This conclusion seems to me to be at least partially warranted by the statements she made to me the succeeding day. Those statements were unequivocal in their meaning that Brown was to have no more direction or controlling influence in your operation of the paper than you desired. She clearly implied that there was no need even to have him on the premises if you decided otherwise. Yet this happened the very next day after she sent to you the seemingly decisive written message.
If I am reasonably accurate in this conclusion, it would appear that the conditions upon which a contract satisfactory to you could be drawn have not appreciably changed.
I have had long talks with Bill Robinson, whose views coincide with mine--and yours--as to the need for rehabilitation of the paper as a guiding influence on present and future policies important to our government and people. My respect for his opinions and for his dedication to the country is high indeed. I repeat some of the things he said because I believe you also like him and respect his judgment.2
Out of his long newspaper experience, he talked about advertising, and its function in producing the principal part of the revenue of a newspaper. He spoke of integrity, of editorial and reporting ability, and of salesmanship in making a newspaper successful. Incidentally he mentioned the extraordinary success experienced by the Herald Tribune during the years 1946-50 when it was operated in accordance with these considerations.
He said that Lee Hills was a man that he, Bill, did not know too well, but he was certain that your selection of Mr. Hills was perfect. This opinion Bill based on information gained from a wide acquaintance in the newspaper world.
Then he made this observation: Every newspaper, no matter how well financed initially, should, to be successful, have a virtual partnership between two men--one of whom is the editorial, make-up and news boss, the other the director of management, advertisement, promotion, circulation and so on. Only, Bill declared, when this combination is a real partnership based upon mutual friendship, respect and ability can a paper become outstanding. No one man--unless he be a genius--can fill satisfactorily both positions.
In Mr. Hills you have, Bill believes, one of the men you need. He wonders whether you have found the other. (Of course, Mr. Hills could be one of those rare men who could function well in both positions).3 I have never heard you mention the idea Bill suggested to me; possibly you feel you’ve already solved this part of the anticipated problem, if the project ever reaches fruition.
In the event that you do need to search further to complete
your management team, I know that you could count on Bill for help if you should ever solicit it. His devotion to the paper and friendship for you would guarantee his cheerful assistance in any way that might seem fitting to you.
His first love is the newspaper profession--I truly believe that under challenging circumstances and in a friendly climate he would go back to it without a moment’s hesitancy. In this I may be wrong--but my conviction illustrates, at the least, how much his interest is absorbed by the problem of influencing public opinion; how deeply he believes such an effort, when unselfish, to be a great public service, whether as owner, editor or publisher.
All this is personal. I hope it does not sound like an exhortation. I do not mean to offer advice gratuitously. But my interest in the whole project is such that I cannot fail to present to you any thought that may seem to me pertinent.
In any event, this letter requires no reply--if it provides any new peep hole through which you may peer from another angle at this complex problem, I shall be more than repaid for writing it. In any event, already I’ve said too much considering the little I know.4
Love to Betsey--all the best to you. As ever
