The First Amendment; The Third World and a Free Press

The First Amendment and a free people. A weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world. The program is produced cooperatively by WGBH Boston and the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Reuben. Are Western concepts of freedom of the press and of this speech under attack around the world today especially in the developing world. Are people saying that a lot of their own troubles whether it's Pakistan or whether it's Iran whether it's Vietnam come because of the freedoms espoused by the West. Well to look at it in more depth and that I am pleasured to have Jeffrey Ghatal the senior roving correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor with me today. In recent months if we just go back for a year and a half Jeffrey Garcia has been to India and Pakistan. He was in Iran covering the story at the

time of the revolution and the turnabout in government. He's been in the Middle East South Africa Australia Japan and Western Europe. Jeffrey as an old correspondent on this program I'd like to ask you a central question and that really is an offshoot of the poser I had at the start. Are we becoming suspect in the eyes of many people around the world because of our western values especially those that they see most overtly in front of them. Our concepts of freedom of speech and of the press and of faith. Oh I think we are. I don't think it is our concepts of freedom as such I suspect. But it seems to me with everything that is that represents progress everything it represents some new blessing for mankind. One nearly always finds that there's curse with it as well as blessing. And while while freedom of the press is one

of. Mankind's basic freedoms and we do have some sensitivity to it should fight to defend it at all costs. I'm sure we're not blind to the fact that freedom of the press often results in license of the press. And it is this license of the press which gives people in developing world particularly or farty in the developing world a whip with which to chastise us which they then wield against freedom of the press not soley against license of the press. There are two parts to your comment one is that freedom of the press associated with progress now progress was a golden word until about 20 years ago in this country and throughout most of the Western nations people were brought up to believe that they were going to make more progress than their mothers and fathers had been permitted to make. No that is also a suspect would just to concentrate on that part of it is the press so so she added with a technological revolution that people in other countries who are

having great difficulties political and social cannot separate the technological revolution revolution from this one facet which is the large industrial empire that produces freedom of the press. I think they do become involved but. I think you'll find that certainly in most places where I've been even the least educated of peoples in the last resort want to know what's going on. I'm sure it's sort of no secret to you. I know this isn't the written word but I'm sure it's no secret to you that sort of through big areas of third world. The BBC World Service is perhaps the most important source of news and that people say I know it's right I heard it on BBC BBC does have this reputation. I think people do want to know what's going on.

Thirdly the BBC doesn't or the British government doesn't under Margaret Thatcher have the same attitude as would be extracted from your remark that curbing the cutting back on the U.S. will this is one thing she's had to backtrack on. It's actually as far as that's concerned it's it's well it's one of the week we're getting off on a side track. But it's unfortunate that the BBC overseas broadcasts come out of the Foreign Office section of the budget. And that money really doesn't affect Foreign Office officials it doesn't affect diplomats. And when Mrs Thatcher said to each government department you have to sort of show savings of a certain percentage we're going to cut government spending. The easiest thing for the Foreign Office is such to cut without impairing jobs or salaries in the Foreign Office was the thing under the heading of overseas broadcasts and so the Foreign Office proposal was to cut that. There are people within Mrs Thatcher's government I think who thought that was very shortsighted. They have prevailed. It has been actually been

postponed. But I wanted to do. I think people do want to know people in developing countries want to know the facts they want to know what's going on. The one thing they cannot stand. Is to have facts reported in a way which humiliates them or makes them seem ridiculous. Well now is that the purpose of Western reporters this is the charge that is made. The charge is made in the Philippines for example that when they had true freedom of the press before martial law was established some seven or eight years ago that they had a licentious press that and the same charges made against the Western press that comes in today in most developing countries that it does bring the embarrassing story or the obscenities of the world rather than bringing so-called National Development stories. Is this really a valid charge or is this one of those charges that sounds awfully good but is proven by the exception. Isn't it true that

most reporting about the third world is rather straightforward reporting and not attempts to embarrass local peoples or government. I dont think that most responsible Western news main go in with the intention of mocking humiliating or misrepresenting. But they do go in with different cultural values and the result can be the result can be hurtful. I think the other thing we have to pair in mind too and both of us are aware of this it's one of the burdens of our profession. And that is good news very rarely makes news it's bad news makes the news. Whether we're dealing with our with our own societies or whether we're dealing with societies developing countries but so many leaders are going one step beyond that that feeling that bad news is what makes news. I can understand that the charges of sensationalism directed against the Western press have certain

roots but leaders are coming along let us take Khomeini. Gadhafi and others who are making a theology out of these protests and perhaps it's an unfortunate reference to communities I don't want to downplay his authentic Muslim theology I'm talking about in lay terms they are saying that a lot of our troubles come not just from this press but from everything that it represents it doesn't represent social evolution as we see it and therefore we don't need these democratic tenets or these Democratic manifestations. It's not just sensationalism that they're opposed to. They seem to be opposed to the whole superstructure of the way our lives and our governments are built. Well I think they are. But I think you know they are they are only a local or regional expression of things we find within our own Western governments. One can think of during their next presidency here in the United States one can think of former Vice President Agnew in the things he said about the media.

One can one can think of. Within the last year in Britain. Mrs. Thatcher and the Conservative government being outraged by BBC television programme on the gunman the IRA gunman in Northern Ireland. No she backtracked on that one as well. I made more fuss and feathers but very little came out beyond that. No parliamentary inquiry of any depth you know what I think should I mean but I think the urge. You know I think the urge of people in government. People have authority. Oh if only he keeps sort of the press off our backs. You know the president the press badger us the press seize on things. To a certain degree this is healthy that leaders who find themselves in an antagonistic position to an inquiring press would object to it. That's healthy. We don't expect them to do otherwise but when they go beyond that I'm worried that we see more

evidences than we should of people who want to go beyond that. Well I think you're absolutely right there I'm not trying to justify some of the some of the things that Third World leaders are doing or trying to do with regard to freedom of the press whether it be their indigenous press or whether it be the activities of outside news men coming in. I think one one runs into a particular problem in developing countries particularly those which have never had any experience in the past of a little experience in the past of being nation states. It is it is very difficult for the president or prime minister or the the head of government or state who inherits sovereignty from a departing colonial country shall we say it is very difficult for that individual to perceive that there is some separation between his person and

the sovereignty of the nation. I think what I want to see in this repeatedly in Africa. One is want to see and I think beyond Africa but there we have. We have a completely through experience of government through an evolutionary process. The presidency of the United States represents sovereignty in the United States. You know Jimmy Carter at the in the first 60 days or more of the crisis in Iran involving the hostages in the American embassy took a position rather similar however valid or invalid saying as the president I'm sick concerned about the lives of those people and therefore I cannot subject myself to a debate in the political system after about 60 days that begin to wear a little thin and not that we don't follow his thesis. But it's the it's the one step beyond which makes us

wonder whether it would not be politically good sense for leaders national leaders to say look I don't want to talk about this category of subject ever. Well I think if you have absolute power and how you try to get at it how you try to organize or set things up now. Here in the United States. There is the amendment which which sort of has the very foundation the First Amendment of the first a member is a fighting faith is it not. I mean you really must defend it in every generation. Yes I do but I mean it means something in the Constitution of the United States and it is something which is taken to the highest court of the land of the last resort. In other countries you will find that freedom of the press in most of the countries even those that are. Are sort of have a long history of democracy. I think if you will you will find that it is rare.

That the freedom of the press is so constitutionally enshrined protected and guaranteed. If you if you take if you if you take third world constitutions one will often find freedom of the press his lip service is paid to it. I believe in the New Constitution of Iran. There is a commitment to freedom of the press. Even the Soviet constitution it is guaranteed except for the exception because he says the same thing except for the exceptions. So it is established as a desirable right. But it is a it seems to me that it that it is except in countries which have the sophistication that one has. I think it is it is very very difficult to ensure that the right has enforced guaranteed and up of no freedom of the press is in the vanguard of democracy.

After all it is the spoken imagery of the democracy whether its put on a piece of paper or over a television screen. It doesn't make any difference. Now it is also the the most obvious as I say front runner for what we believe. However there is that world wide attack not just on the right of the press but. I believe what we have been saying to the world since Erasmus this attack has come very suddenly. It has become identified in part as a third world attack. A lot of it is not taken very seriously by the people who make the charges because they know better. But it's become a very popular thing and masses around the world are being stood by this anti democratic thesis. Is there is a validity to that or is that just my impression that we should be alert to this. So I think we should be alert to it. At the outset you spoke about freedom of the press being something on which democracy is based. Our concept of democracy. Yes. And

what we understand by democracy to which I subscribe and which I uphold and which I will fight but we do have to remember that there are societies outside the western world who do not have exactly the same concept of democracy and would argue they are not absolute or authoritarian societies. I suppose to us certain extent one could take a country like Tanzania for example where there is it's a one party state. But there is some within that one party state. There is some measure of choice and there is some freedom to criticize. And they would say but we are we aren't. We are a democracy. We are we are not on our Thora Tarion state. I make the point because we are using our terms. And I subscribe to what

you say in our terms freedom of the press is elemental orse the foundation of democracy as we enjoy it and for which both you and I will fight within our as I said let me put it another way without disagreeing with you because I take your point. Let us say we're dealing with a very poor country like Tanzania which is one of the poorest countries in Africa. They have great economic problems they have great social problems. Therefore they they can say we are not an authoritarian country we do have much more liberalism than you think. Those of you who are dogmatic about Western values but nevertheless could we not come back and say to them perhaps you misunderstand us that we don't have this codified freedom of the press that is etched in stone but we believe that a certain minimal amount of freedom of the press it's nonexistent. Actually the lie is your statement that you are not an authoritarian country. And it's the at the that the poorest level that you

must make progress. I wouldn't disagree with you were tall. I don't take up the second part of your question about this worldwide trend. I think it's I think one has to. Recognize that the United States is part of a the globe encircling movement or is the latest expression if you like of a global second movement the can you compact it roughly to the Renaissance. The Renaissance was it was a a mentally exclusive experience in Europe which led to tremendous discoveries it led to all the things that we define as progress. So you can actually take a map of Europe and cut it geographically as to those areas in which the Renaissance flowered and in those and as against those areas in which the Reformation flowered without the Renaissance having any real impact

and the political histories are notoriously different in some regard. I would agree. But it is that. Which led to what one might say more efficient and effective political system. The Renaissance came that more efficient economies it led eventually to industrialization. It led to using it in its simplest terms superior technology and that has meant superior weaponry which meant that those peoples or those societies in which the Renaissance expressed itself were thrust out into the world and because of all those material advantages which were the expression of the eventual expression of the Renaissance they were in fact able to subjugate most of the rest of the world and try to give to most of the rest of the world their pattern imprint. But are we making are we making it clear to the rest of the world in language that could be understood that from a poem about Beatrice in the Renaissance to

a poem about marriage in John's Yardy lies the essence the purview of freedom of the press. No I don't I don't think so you see that. I don't think that is completely understood. But all our values are and are our values and our culture we took with us and you have been a nation as I have seen sort of the vestiges of that there. But we we took there with us freedom the press was was one of these things. Since the end of World War 2 since the end of World War 2 that European thrust of peace unite and one has had the collapse of European empires and was hand the reemergence as sovereign independent states of 100 new nations in largely in Asia and Africa. And I think what we are seeing is is as you rightly

said a worldwide movement. It's a backlash after this liberation from western cultural domination in which the baby is in danger of being thrown out with the bathwater. Exactly put what happens at the next stage after the throes of nationalism. Will the next stage be the emergence of a press in each country following some nationalistic trends such as we have a relatively free press relatively free press in Japan. Yes we have a relatively free press in Malaysia. We have a relatively free press in certain ways in India. Is this what will happen that even though all the rhetoric is one way I do believe that the the baby will be saved once the bathwater is gone. Now the interesting thing is is that you. You've taken Japan and you've taken Malaysia. You've taken India by those do happen to be all countries which have preserved some kind of multi-party system. Yes

now I realize that there are certain inhibitions in Malaysia but Malaysia is a remarkably free country compared to some of the other countries of Southeast Asia. There it is I don't think. I'm sure he would agree he's no coincidence that this is in these countries where there there has been success indigenously in preserving a forum in which there is room for political opposition. He's in those countries that one has the maintenance of a free press. But if I take in Libya and Uganda. Etc. etc. I would have had no argument at all because the multi-party system never grabbed hold. I am. Look I am hopeful. I am hopeful that. In such countries as you mentioned there were events to be recognised.

The advantage of freedom of the press. I think. I think I mean we are going to continue to struggle. It seems to me in the years and decades ahead as we have struggled in the past but when tyranny between governments which represent tyrannies and governments which offer some minimal freedoms it's going to continue the struggle between those two forces. We're on a plateau now Jeffrey got so I am not sure that we're on a plateau you know toing the in his in his study of history. I mean just as you said are we on a plateau. But he wrote I guess two decades ago I mean men's been dead for several years. The 12th volume.

Has a final chapter actually headed. The next ledge he chose at the next ledge rather and I'm coming back with that because you used the word plateau. And I have kind of feeling he may be right. Mankind men are not going to give up this struggle. It will ebb and flow and flow. We will go on struggling and in that same chapter incidentally Toynbee says it will be the perception or certainly implies the great perception that the struggle is going to be more than it has been in the recent past in the area of religion. I think we begin to see that with the emergence of someone like Ayatollah Khomeini and with the the tremendous appeal of the current incumbent of the papacy Pope John Paul

and he have Toynbee speaks about the struggle on the next ledge. And he says he thinks that there will be two choices between the for the human race. One between what he calls the road of the saint which is the road of the martyr the road of the individual whom who at the individual level is prepared to fight for what he thinks is right. It's he will strive to be righteous as an individual. He will strive to direct the community toward righteousness but it will be the individual sort of on the rough hard path if you like the saint the other road will be offered the Toynbee suggests is the road of conditioning which is a much easier road. But that's the road of scientific socialism.

It's the road is the road of the Cults. It's the road where people no longer have to think for themselves but are conditioned into thinking and accepting what they are told is good for them. I think that's going to. And I think it's I you said are we on a plateau. Of course it's possible as we're sort of going up the mountain that far before we start going up again. We'll go down a bit before we go up again but I don't think that we're ever going to reach the top and find we're there permanently on a platter. Let me ask you a question that's a very practical level. The newsmen are the emissaries on both sides. Are they up to it. They ARE YOU obviously dealing with great forces cosmic forces here.

Are they up to the struggle some people say we may be on the edge of another 939. We had best be cautious as we plunge ahead because mass communications in the struggles over freedoms or anti freedoms are becoming almost cataclysmic. Other news people up to acting as emissaries negotiating back and forth through the use of words. Well I think one continues to find Thank goodness that there are individuals up to it. But I think the challenge in some ways is greater than it's ever been before because of instant communication because we are we have to sort of switch our attention. In the same day or in the same hour from Nicaragua to Iran to Cambodia in the past 100 years ago hundred fifty years ago it took us three weeks to discover what was happening there let alone have them all served up to us sort of the same day or the same night. And I think with much greater

literacy with the widespread availability of radio and television you may get more people who are not as educated as the few experts were who handled it fifty or a hundred years ago. If the freedoms that we espouse are like a three hundred forty piece puzzle given to a youngster. And there is a picture on that puzzle each of those little pieces is a message brought by the mass media and suddenly the picture will come out. I guess our great fear is that the youngster will get so frustrated as the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to produce the picture of the snowball or of the mountain brook that he will just reach up as so many youngsters do and throw this whole democratic operators that seems to be just pieces up into the air. I think that's that's a marvelous analogy. But do we really all want to be Samsons.

Well Jeffrey Gasol It's been a great pleasure talking to you. And I think what we have been grappling with is one of the essential questions that go beyond the First Amendment but to the roots of the First Amendment is a continuation and that is its viability to the rest of the world which is struggling sometimes for the next meal as well as for the next idea. Again Geoffrey Ghatal of the Christian Science Monitor it's been a pleasure for this edition. Bernard Reuben. The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world. The engineer for this broadcast was Perry Carter. And the program is produced by Greg Fitzgerald. This broadcast is produced cooperatively by WGBH Boston and the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University are solely responsible for its content. This is the station program exchange.