Evening star., 1946-07-04

made great judge. Certainly he
possessed a balanced and judicial
temperament which was indicated
in his approach to every question
on which his opinion was requested
He wanted all the facts and he
showed a sometimes surprising in
tuition in ferreting out details
which, seemingly unimportant to
others at the time, he weighed care
fully in reaching his own decision
And when he made a decision, he
did not readily change it.
Many active newspapermen are
slaves of the clock, their lives
harassed by approaching headlines
He never was. Some of his asso-
ciates retain a mental picture OF
him at his desk, press time ap-
preaching. calmly re-reading proofs
and making his revisions with the
stubby remnant of pencil. oblivious
to everything but the perfection he
was seeking in whatever went, from
his hands, into the paper.
First taking shape with notes
written with that stubby pencil on
the margin of used envelopes, scraps
OF note paper or the back of proof
sheets, some Of his exhaustive
articles would progress to multiple
column lengths that would later
require his own aid in deciphering
He sometimes dictated from notes
sometimes copied his own notes In
longhand, never used the type
writer himself.
A Good Judge of News.
He knew good story when he
saw one. and most of the time
he knew more about its back
ground-and its parallels in the past
than anybody else on the paper
His memory was as often the de-
spalr as it was the salvation of his
news department associates, and
some incident in the news would
suggest story from the past that
gave the incident new significance
He ran many a campaign in The
Star, and sometimes he lost. But
he was as philosophical over a set
back as he was over some temporary
victory. He was always looking
ahead. to the next step.
He had fundamental rule in news
reporting which he insisted should
be followed. Tell both sides of the
story" And any valid complaint
OF unfeirness. or inadequate pres
entation of essential facts, meant
that in some later edition of The
Star-days later, if necessary-the
story would be told again, this time
in fairness to all concerned. He in
sisted on objective news reporting
and While he was a sound Judge OF
good writing, he believed most read
ers preferred the facts to the color. .
He was as sparing in his praise as he
was OF his criticism. Always gentle
and courteous with whomever he
dealt, he patiently sought to con-
vince. but never to tell, an associate
or assistant that there had been an
error of judgment. He was strictly
1mpersonal in criticism of this sort
referring to an error in expression
or fact in an editorial as if it were
the editorial itself that committed
the error-neVer the writer of the
editorial. Gently chiding an assist
ant once who had been short and
abrupt in answering a readers COM
plant, he said, Il think any Star
reader interested enough to COM
plain deserves hearing. If I am
not able to convince an aggrieved
reader that he is wrong, then I feel
that perhaps he is right"
Views on Editorials.
In his early days as an editorial
writer he prided himself as being
rather apt in the art of satire. It
was characteristic of him that, be-
coming interested in satirical writ
ing, he read its masters diligently
But responsibility of editorship con-
Vlnced him that, in editorial writ
Ing, at least. satire was a wasted
art. Few people understood it, he
said, and those who did were more
apt to be offended than pleased
He possessed a discriminating sense
OF humor himself. But he was wary
OF the sort of humor in an editorial
That was gained at another S
expense.
He regarded his editorship OF