Mr.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some
time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day
events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the
sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London
correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a
family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing
editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per
installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the
"lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for
other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship
with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would
bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold
war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more
kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have
been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the
next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the
expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President
and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded
"The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments
tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another
country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain
newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that
this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had
already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual
assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I
have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from
a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the
televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial
to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to
observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous
qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree
of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers
have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them
no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service
photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green
privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of
one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean
a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well
as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a
common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that
challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the
horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing
this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the
totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge
that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of
direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that
may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and
fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need
for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater
official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open
society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that
the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far
outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is
little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its
arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is
very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized
upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that
it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is
high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as
an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or
to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the
nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our
country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily
joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized
disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the
courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must
yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be,
it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under
attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe.
The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no
borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the
self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever
posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of
"clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has
never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in
missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor
leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a
monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for
expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on
subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has
conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly
knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold
War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish
to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of
national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to
be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as
outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly
boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise
hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of
this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations
have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the
size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and
our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press
and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and
that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret
mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the
expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic,
responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they
undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open
warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of
national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should
not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should
answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against
your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all
of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet
those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention,
and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have
constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of
sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his
rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now
believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider
themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to
govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or
any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the
dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I
am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this
country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and
the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which
that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is
it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the
interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in
America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask
the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same
exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary
assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will
cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to
the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In
times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results,
are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril
which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise
to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our
obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they
possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils,
the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that
scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or
opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support
the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of
informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in
the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome
it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise
man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to
correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and
we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can
succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon
decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why
our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America
specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and
entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply
"give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to
reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises
and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public
opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it
is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means
greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved
transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet
its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside
the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on
three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder
and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the
compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one
becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live
together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind
of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the
keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength
and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to
be: free and independent.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Listen to this speech