PUBLISHER’S PAGE

I’ve always admired Dick West’s ability to turn a phrase. Many of us were brought up under his tutelage; the editorial pages of the Dallas News instructed us carefully, and continually, on a range of local and national affairs. Anyone who grew to maturity in the Fifties and Sixties will recall the catechism of Dick West: why Texas should remain a one-party state, how the Republicans had played the spoiler in catapulting Ralph Yarbrough to the U.S. Senate, what joys Divine Providence had granted Dallas by bestowing on us the blessings of Lew Sterrett, Henry Wade and Bill Decker, what qualities made Congressman Joe Pool a Great American.

You have to understand that I was raised with a particular affection for the man. The Wests lived down the street, and I used to think that the most wonderful place in the city was their downstairs bathroom, its walls jammed with a photographic gallery of the greats and near-greats of Texas politics, each picture thoughtfully inscribed to the editorial editor of the Dallas News. Mr. West had many friends, and he took care of them.

On the one occasion he didn’t, back in 1964, the shock waves ran like a tremor through the political community. The story, I understand, went something like this.

West’s good friend and political hero, Lyndon Johnson, was running for President. Since the News internal rules give the editorial editor absolute and final judgment over such matters, West was intent on endorsing him. The only problem was that Ted Dealey, the aging publisher, was opposed – adamantly opposed – to the endorsement. The argument raged for weeks. Finally West put his foot down: Look, the editorial page is my page, and I’m endorsing Lyndon. “That’s just fine,” old Mr. Dealey replied. “The front page is my page, and I’m endorsing Barry Goldwater.” The News remained neutral.

But, all in all, West has done a good job of sticking with his friends in the conservative Democratic camp, even when his loyalty has caused some editorial juggling on the questions of national politics. His is the Democratic Party of Sam Rayburn and Allan Shivers. If those names evoke memories of another era, so does the editorial page of the Dallas News.

Lately it has begun to show in embarrassing ways. Take, for example the News’ endorsements for the County Courthouse races in the most recent election. The News, of course, may endorse anyone it pleases. As a result of West’s abiding affection for his friends, though, the endorsement ritual has become little more than an exercise in rhetoric, and I doubt anyone expected it to go any differently in this case. But West surprised us.

The editorial was a classic of the genre. West was faced with a problem, you see, because the smell of corruption was very much in the air. He couldn’t ignore it, and he couldn’t rationalize it away. So he dismissed it.

The editorial’s lead sentence: “In spite of those occasional indiscretions such as the bail bond controversy, Dallas has enjoyed one of the best county governments in Texas.”

The felicitous choice of words in that phrase alone are worth an entire semester’s credit in creative writing. A scandal that the News had headlined for months, that had rocked county government to its core, and that had shaken a citizenry still recovering from the implications of Watergate-that scandal becomes, with a few pecks at the typewriter, an “occasional indiscretion.” It’s no longer even a scandal; it’s a “controversy.” (And could it be that other county governments are run so badly because Texas is a one-party state? Nah.)

Without another reference to our nagging county problems or to the serious questions being raised about official conduct, West -and thereby, Dallas’ most venerable and respected institution – went on to endorse the re-election of County Judge Lew Ster-rett and his Democratic running mates. The problems so blithely dismissed by Dick West were not ignored by the voters.

For those of us who grew up with the News as our guiding light, it was a dismal – even irresponsible – performance. The News was founded by George B. Dealey as a progressive institution that would seek, and print, the truth. (It was Dealey, one recalls, who at great risk to his newspaper’s survival almost single-handedly drove the Ku Klux Klan from power and destroyed its burgeoning popularity.) We expect on the editorial page to see the editors’ version of the truth. We do not expect to see a distortion of the truth.

As a conservative newspaper the News today does little justice to the conservative position. It provides little guidance to a city desperately in need of leadership. It shows little recognition of the complexities of modern urban life. Unlike its evening counterpart, it shows little inclination to respond to the challenge of maintaining the momentum and spirit of the city it helped to build.

Instead, it continues to rely on the entanglements of cronyism and the old, established patterns of power politics.

Until men of the caliber of Jim Wright and Bill Murchison take full control of the News’ editorial page and begin to provide articulate, intelligent expositions of the News’ editorial philosophy and position on the affairs of this city, we can expect the newspaper’s influence to continue to deteriorate. Until then, others must carry on the legacy of George B. Dealey, with a restored commitment to publishing the truth and to providing help to a city sadly in need of stronger voices.



■ Our columnists seem to be stirring up quite a few hornets’ nests lately. In our “Letters” section this month, Don Shook of Crystal Palace Dinner Theatre writes to defend his establishment against last month’s barbs by Kerry Newcomb and Frank Shae-fer, while Jac Alder of Theatre Three drops a note of praise for our honesty.

Along the same line, I received a note the other day from our good friends, Jan Gardner and Don Bou-dreaux of the Bellmaster. Although food critic Frank Bailey’s remarks about their restaurant last month seemed quite complimentary to me, our friends contend that Bailey “could not have possibly experienced the res-taurant. He may have visited it, but our restaurant is warm, elegant, and offers a cuisine that is above average to say the least.”

I can’t disagree. As we disclaim in the beginning of each issue’s dining directory, “restaurant rating can be a highly arbitrary business.” The owners may not agree with the critics, and the critics may not agree with the customers.

Naturally, when responding to our critics’ comments, the offended party usually reacts by demanding to know the critics’ credentials. It’s a fair request.

The criteria for the selection of ourcritics are quite simple: (1) that theyhave a standard of excellence againstwhich they measure achievements intheir respective fields, (2) that theyare knowledgeable enough to applythat standard rigorously and fairly,and (3) that I personally trust in theirrecommendations. Without exception, everything published in thismagazine under their bylines has metthose criteria.