and-chowder society … spoke of Rosenthalnwith awe as a ‘terrific anti-Communist.’n”nSo William F. Buckley, Jr. was overawed.nIs this why his magazine becamenanticommunist too.-‘ “Richard Clurman,nanother friend and club member, feltnthat Abe’s political roots lay in the coldnwar.” A real anticommunist cold warriornat the helm of the New York Times.nBut who was more rigorously anticommunist,nthe New York Times or JosephnMcCarthy.” Mr. Salisbury cites a letternArthur Sulzberger wrote to GeneralnLucius D. Clay in the late 40’s:nI asked my associates yesterday whatntheir views would be if we suddenlynfound ourselves at war with Russia.nThey agreed instantly that all of thesenpersons [communists or former communists],nplus those who were evennsuspect, would be out. Then I askednthem if a state of peace existed now.nOf course it did not. The Soviet regimeneventually engineered the Berlin blockade,nand later. North Vietnam’s conquestnof South Vietnam and Cambodian—hardly a state of peace. Sulzbergernwas right!nThe line which Arthur Sulzbergerndrew in the letter to Clay and the positionntaken in the editorial ‘We havena Right to Know’ [i.e., to know whonon the New York Times was once anmember of the American CommunistnParty] did not differ greatly from thenexpressed attitude of the Eastlandncommittee. Both positions were vigorouslynanti-Communist but whilenthe Eastland committee and McCarthynsought to sow general distrust andnhatred of the press, Arthur Sulzbergernwas fighting to preserve the press andnprotect it against contamination [bynthe communists]. He expected hisneditors to guard vigilantly againstntainting of the news .. .nSo Sulzberger was a McCarthy (or annEastland) of the press, so to speak, fightingnwithin the press against communistncontamination and guarding vigilantlynagainst communist tainting of the news.nH ow will Mr. Salisbury and the NewnYork Times really change now that henhas announced that it has always beennso conservative, prodefense and anticommunistnas to awe even William F.nBuckley, Jr..’ We can get a hint fromnMr. Salisbury’s article, “A Boon for thenKGB” (New York Times, January 31,n1980). According to Mr. Salisbury, then”whole Soviet economic system mightnsimply collapse.” What could possiblynmake that happen.’ According to Mr.nSalisbury, the Olympics would bringnabout this terrible destruction of thenSoviet regime, and President Cartern111- ‘/’,7«l•.^ is a great nt’w.spaper- a naiinnal treasure .nprevented it by his boycott:nWhat dynamite items the Olympicsnwould introduce into Soviet culturenprobably will never be known if, asnPresident Carter wishes, the boycottnsucceeds.nThis is why the U.S. boycott of thenOlympics is a cause for rejoicing amongnSoviet secret police—it is a “boon fornthe KGB.” By the same token, it can benclaimed that detente, SALT, the salenof technology to the Soviet military machine,nAmerican unilateral disarmament,nand unopposed Soviet conquestsnhave all been detrimental to the Sovietnregime: it is odd how the latter hasnsurvived.nThe question is: If the Olympics werendynamite for the Soviet regime, whilenthe boycott was a boon for the KGB, whyndid the Soviet rulers struggle for Moscownto be the site of the 1980 Olympics,nand why were they protesting the boycottnso fiercely.’ The only explanation is thatnthey forgot to consult Mr. Salisbury asnto what might dynamite their regime. Innother words, Mr. Salisbury and hisnnewspaper are still pursuing the samengoals as in the 60’s and 70’s; only theirncoloration is different. In 1980 Mr. Salis-nnnbury argues against any tough Americannmoves in response to the Soviet invasionnof Afghanistan:nThere is, we should understand, a flipnside to American policy vis-a-vis thenSoviet Union. There is a hawk factionnin the Soviet Union just as in thenUnited States. Each tough Carternmove will evoke a tough one withinnthe Soviet Union.nThus speaks the conservative Mr.nSalisbury in his conservative newspapernin 1980. But didn’t we hear exactly thensame argument from 1966 to ’75 fromnthe liberal Mr. Salisbury and his liberalnnewspaper? Surely all Soviet aggressionn•iVcjc York .Maifniiuenin those days was also explained as a responsento American toughness. Shouldnthe United States surrender today, thenconservative Mr. Salisbury would explainnthat the act of surrender was toontough, and hence the Soviet rulers havento be tough in response.nWhat is the rest of the book like andnwhy is it subtitled “An UncompromisingnLook at the New York Times”?nWhen a courtier of Nicholas I of Russianwas asked what he thought of His Majesty’snRussia (where serfdom still flourished),nthe courtier first maintained thatnhe was not born to be a flatterer or timeserver,nthat his look at His Majesty’snRussia would be uncompromising, thatnhe was wont to speak the truth withoutnfear or favor, no matter how unpleasantnto His Majesty it might be. “Your Majesty,”nthe courtier finally said, “the pastnof Russia is glorious, the present is magnificent,nand the future surpasses anynhuman notion.” Substitute “New YorknTimes ” for “Russia” and you have Mr.nSalisbury’s uncompromising look at thenNew York Times. No, not a single compromise—thenunvarnished, unbiasedntruth:nThe Times [as of 1971] was by everynSeptember/October 1980n