intensity of the new coloration. But letnus recall that Mr. Salisbury has alwaysnbeen the most chameleonic of thenTimes s editors. He was the first to jumpnon the left-wing bandwagon of the 60’s,nand he has now changed his coloring sonquickly and drastically that it rendersnthe observer dizzy and breathless. I havenno doubt that the New York Timesnwill follow his lead. The Sovietnthreat, which the New York Times hasnfantasized into a “Soviet-Americannfriendship,” will get worse with everynpassing year. And the public mood willnchange accordingly, no matter what thenNew York Times would like to do tonstop this. Some events are so stark andnobvious that even the Times cannotnprevent their impact on the Americannpopulation at large. Mr. Salisbury didnnot understand this at the time of ourn197 5 debate on television. Now he does.nMr. Salisbury describes what hencalls the “top echelon of the Times, “nwhich determined the political orientationnof the institution as of 1971 (althoughnMr. Salisbury begins with severalnearlier decision-makers, evidentlynin order to demonstrate an unbrokenntradition). Here are Mr. Salisbury’s descriptions:nTurner Catledge—“His Ole Missnclassmate had been John Stennis, asnstalwart a hawk and military proponentnas was to be found in the U.S. Senate.”nOnce, McCarthy was accused of assigningnguilt by contiguity. Now Mr. Salisburynproudly assigns conservative credentialsnby contiguity. Surely Catledgenwas conservative if his classmate wasnJohn Stennis.nClifton Daniel—For God’s sake, hisnfather-in-law was President Truman,nand “his political persuasions were closento those of his father-in-law.”nArthur Hays Sulzberger—He “warmlynbacked Eisenhower in 1952 andn1956,” writes Mr. Salisbury enthusiastically.nAnd Eisenhower advocated anroll-back policy vis-a-vis the Soviet regime,nnot just containment.nJames Reston—“Scotty Reston wasn121nChronicles of Culturenan essentially conservative man whongrew steadily more conservative as thenyears passed.”n”MaxFrankel… consciously modelednhimself on Reston.” “The same couldnbe said of managing editor Rosenthal,nwho had emerged as the most conservativeneditor on the paper.”nBut nothing is perfect—or at leastnnothing is perfectly conservative—notneven at the New York Times.nThere was one major Times editornwho was outspoken and vigorous innhis opposition to the Vietnam Warnand to American policy in Indochinanas carried out by Presidents Johnsonnand Nixon.nSo there was one such editor. A blacknsheep. A rotten apple. An oddball. Whonwas that terrible maverick.’nThis was John Oakes, fifty-eight yearsnold in March 1971, director of theneditorial page . . .nSurely we can assume that he, atnleast, was not a conservative. Oh, butnhe was, according to Salisbury: “Oakesnwas a member of X-2, the counterintelligencengroup of OSS, and among hisncolleagues was . . . James Angleton . . .nwho ultimately headed the counterintelligencenbranch of the CIA.” However,nfrom 1966 to 1975 the CIA was, as anninstitution in toto, as antidefense as thenNew York Times, and it is difficult tonsay which of them did more damage tonthe country. But Mr. Salisbury stillnbanks on the good-old-days conservativencredentials of the CIA. Also, we learnnnnthat “Oakes had declared his total agreementn. . . with Rosenthal’s worry overnwhat he perceived as the paper’s trendnto the left politically.” Pinkos on thenTimes? Said Oakes: “I would fire somenof those bastards.” If Rosenthal was thenmost conservative editor, Oakes wasnthe mostest. So what was wrong withnthis archconservative.-^nOakes was a painfully honest, painfullynprincipled man. There was nonone more upright on the Times thannOakes but there was no one so totallynlacking in humor. Oakes was dedicatednto his opposition to the Vietnamnwar, dedicated in his generalnhostility to Richard Nixon . ..nI suppose Oakes was kept on the NewnYork Times out of charity: the mostnconservative conservative, yet with anloose screw up there. To oppose thenVietnam War! It was simply a streaknof madness in this dyed-in-the-woolnconservative.nMr. Salisbury drops references andnallusions to the conservatism of then”top echelon of the Times ” throughoutnthe book. “Walter Sullivan, the Timesnscience specialist, went to Yale withnJames Angleton,” and “Sullivan, Mc-nGeorge Bundy and Angleton were onnthe board of the Yale Literary Magazinentogether, Sullivan and Bundy beingnliterary conservatives and Angleton thenradical.” Abe Rosenthal “came in laterndays to describe himself as a ‘bleedingheart’nconservative . . . sour on ‘thenliberal camp.’ Rosenthal’s close friendnWilliam F. Buckley, Jr., founder withnRosenthal of an eight-man marching-n