tN WEDNESDAY'S leading article The Times has answered every question
except the important One: why it allowed a piece of second-hand specu- lation to be printed as a news story. Sir William Haley's excuse that it was the most interesting article in the paper (he can say that again) really will not do : if The Times were to publish' what goes on in the Saudi-Arabian harems and publish it as their lead news story it would be interesting, but this would hardly justify The Times publishing it. But I am glad to see The Tittles saying that there could be no greater affront to readers 'than that, under the cloak of serving them, it was really pursuing some private ends, engaging in political manceuvres.' A pity The Times did not think of this in 1938; and why, incidentally, if The Times boasts of this business as a nine days' wonder, did it publish no news or letters about it during the
Previous page
