The First Amendment; Francis W. Sargent

WP VHF radio in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people and examination of civil liberties and the media. In the 1970s and now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Rubin. I'm very pleased to have as my guest today Governor Francis W. Sargent My co-host is Dean John recline of the school of public communication at Boston University. Now just a word or two about Governor Sargent for those of you who don't know his background most of you do. He's an MIT graduate and he has done extensive would gain in what we might call the environmental area with the water and fisheries and natural resources he's been the commissioner of the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission he's been the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources and executive director of the United States outdoor recreation

resources commission. And he has also been commissioner of the mass Department of Public Works very extensive background in that field I must say. From 67 until 68 of course Francis Sargent was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts later acting governor of Massachusetts and from 1972 976 governor of Massachusetts currently. He is lecturing at the Joint Center for Urban Affairs which is a joint center of Harvard and MIT and also at the Kennedy Center at Harvard University. The governor the first question I want to throw out to you is really based upon the reasons for your being asked to come we're delighted that you're here. Our presumption is that a man who has had this long public service and has faced a great many public problems and I certainly know you have faced them social problems busing desegregation insurance companies and all the rest of it. How has acquired a great deal of wisdom

not only about the government in general but about the First Amendment about the media. The first question is what was your attitude toward media coverage of the crucial events of our day. Seen from the catbird seat of a responsible public official. Well having read and seen both the better and the sweet. When you're in office you have to get used to taking a number of lumps obviously. I think the biggest problem today in relation to a political leader being understood and the media serving its purpose of trying to educate people is the attention span of people is so short and if there's a rather complicated subject that involves some understanding if somehow the people could understand it they would know how to react to it but they usually don't bother to try to understand it and they'll just

go for a slogan then they're either for the thing or they're against it. And this I think is very puzzling as to how to handle it I think that you know. People of country many of them tend to consider the newspapers and television sort of entertainment and they read the entertainment the easy part. But when you get into a complicated subject and many of them are today particularly in government then how in the devil do you get the people to understand it. And this is a constant problem for a political leader who feels he's doing the right thing. But the public don't understand what the hell he's doing. And sometimes the media really don't understand it. And that if it's a matter of television or radio they only want a two minute or a three minute spot. And how do you tell the story in two or three minutes that's tough long feature story in the paper.

Just usually isn't read by the vast majority of people. So what I'm saying is it's a problem. I don't know what the answer is. Do you think that that the government or the governor and through his press secretary or however should or should background the reporters and in this kind of thing are. Is it the governor's responsibility is it the press secretary's responsibility to do the research or do you think the individual reporters should be the people who dig in into the story for understanding. I think in the instance of the governor's office and the governor it's really his responsibility if he wants to he or she want to get the story across and understood. And I think to rely on the media is all very well but a lot of the media are and more interested in investigatory things and the question is how to package it and how to have it understood and I think your suggestion of the backgrounder.

The briefing session is very good and what we did and we found it to be quite successful was to have a member of the staff who was particularly well informed or a couple of members of the staff of the cabinet brief the press perhaps for a day before. An important announcement so that they would understand it so that they would be able to ask of the governor in my instance the tough questions rather than just really not understanding at all and when you consider that you go from the automobile insurance to mental health questions to desegregation to your own name that I think it really is important to have briefing sessions so that the press understand it because the press will usually And I'm speaking press I'm talking all of the media. They will better treat a person in public

office if they understand the why's and wherefore's and why you did what you did do. Usually the as you say the reports on television are a minute and a half maybe maximum sometimes two minutes which I don't think is a very good idea in a lot of cases for important stories however if the reporter knows the story thoroughly and has briefed himself then what comes across in those minute and a half or two minutes can give a pretty good idea to the audience but did you find that that television reporters would come to your briefings I assume that the newspaper reporters would but the television reporters seem to hop from story to story and I wondered what your experience was with that. Well without naming names there were there were some TV news commentators who were familiar with the State House state government things of that nature and they did come to the press briefings and they were knowledgeable and I think that it

helped their program even if it was a two minute thing that they could. Get the pertinent points and have an understandable others tend to showboat a little bit more. And they don't now and they don't understand and they don't come to the briefing. And yet they can get a sensational story but it may be totally inaccurate and not therefore not understandable people. Now when you go Governor to a crucial story that the governor is interested in and finds that the press is at the center of it and also pressure groups are tangling with the administration I was thinking for example of any graduated income tax effort which I know you have been involved in. What point of frustration do you do you seek some way out is there any way out of the emotional story which is not understood by the people and in which the pressure groups are very active. Yeah and I think the graduated income tax is a very good example

because there you're trying to get people to go to the polls in November and vote for a tax. Well who the hell is going to vote for a tax nobody. Yes but if they could understand what was really involved so that they could make a sensible decision. Now obviously top businessmen a very post this they would personally be affected by it. If for no other reason. But to get the pros and the cons of it clearly understood for example it was always surprising to me that labor for example was opposed to the graduated income tax. Not really because they understood it completely but they listened to a few slogans and they decided to post away. Well this I think was a matter of us and others not being able to really have people understand. I'm not saying that you should be

for or against it but at least they ought to know what the subject is and what the consequences were on a sort of follow up basis with the tangential issue of the racial crisis. That's a strange way of putting all these bizarre things that are happening in order to achieve a democracy in this country. Seems to me that many leaders are not exerting their moral suasion powers and as a matter of fact they're quite slippery is the only word that I can use. They constantly repeat the phrases I am for what the court ordered. I am personally against that sort of thing etc etc.. The message comes through quite clear that the leaders are ducking the issues and some of these social questions. Is that a fair estimate. Oh yes I think. And there's certainly nothing more emotional. There's nothing that applies more to the question of slogan. I mean for boxing per se or against boxing Well that isn't

really what it's all about actually. It's a highly difficult thing I highly emotional thing and if you're a politician it's a very frightening thing to handle because people feel so intensely about it. And without getting into the pros and cons with the tragedy of the whole thing particularly here in Boston is that if when our racial balance bill passed back 10 more years ago if gradually it had been put into effect and schools improved. We wouldn't be going through the chaos that we're going through right now. But the leaders avoided it but they tried it. They tried to postpone it or amend it or refused to cooperate with it and the result is that we now have a chaotic situation and I don't know what the bottom line is going to be I don't know whether a left is going to work as it is it is as a result. Is it because I think was back meeting 14 or thereabouts and Henry Clay said I'd rather be right

than president are our leaders concerned that if they do take a moral stand and it is covered by the press that their ambitions for public office are ended. Well I think that many of them are concerned about that and there again it's the person who takes a courageous stand but also has an ability to have the public understand what he's talking about. John in relation in other words what I guess I'm saying is that you can take a very controversial position on things. But if you're believable and if you're trusted they may say well I disagree with that. On the other hand he said he's taken a pretty gutsy position. And that's what he really feels. But it takes a knack I think on the part of the political leader to have people understand why he has taken the position he's taken then how does that affect the role of the press secretary or the public

relations office of the governor our state agencies. What what do you see as their role in that in that area. Well again I think I think the press briefing is important so that the price will understand well here. Here was the way we went about it. Here are the decisions we've made. And if we didn't do this this is what we believe would happen and be able to. Background the press so they won't be just looking for slogans. Can I give you an example I get away from bussing because it's so emotional or racial balance. We were trying to push through a reorganization of state government and I think everyone realized that it was important and necessary to eliminate a lot of agencies and to have a more effective and efficient system. But it's the least sexy subject in the world to talk about. That is where the emotionalism as you can't reduce it to

slogans. And we had a terrible time trying to get the people to understand what it was all about the legislature understood. But as we were getting closer and closer to an election they understood it. On the other hand they want to kind of vote for it because it was a Democratic legislature a Republican governor and they weren't going to do me any particular favors but the question of having the public understand that we just really never I think did a particularly good job on that. We thought of ways and we had seminars and we got the opinion makers together and I think the opinion makers thought it was pretty good but to get the general people. To be interested in it or care was hard to do the easy way to try to dramatize it would be to talk about the millions of dollars that you would save and yet you couldn't really be sure how many may have improved service and there would be some savings but try to

put a tag on it of X millions of dollars. Isn't there a problem here in Massachusetts especially not uniquely but in Massachusetts is a long history of the pungent political statement being so delicious on the mouth of every politician. I remember as chairman of the taskforce the reporting and public information which was report was given to the governor of all pay if you recall back in 61 we asked for professionalism view of of the reporting and whatnot. We never got anywhere. Is it impossible to know to change this attitude that what's sexy from the triples off the tongue is what's good for the public. Well the trouble is that a politician. Really want a catchy quick way of answering a question. But because he's besieged with questions whether he's on the street or whether he's getting a phone call or

whatever and he many times doesn't know the subject in depth. And so it's very tough to get the politician to understand it well enough to be able to explain it point by point. And if he can just have a phrase and say No I'm against it we don't want another layer of government for example. Hell no I'm not for it. Nobody wants to have the kids on the bus. I use are you summarizing. Complete the rhetoric of this political campaign. Well gee I think it's a really tragic thing to think that the American people have been going through the trial more of these primaries and nobody knows what in the world any one of the candidates for that's what they're up against they have no idea at all. I mean I don't think the press is not going about Panama Jimmy Carter smiling a lot it's just a strange thing.

There's a reticence to in some ways the press plays with the politicians because it sometimes. And Hance is their image if they don't press too hard. If they're not seen to be certainly but sometimes there is seem to be afraid to answer the direct question what do you believe on this issue you know and certainly as you say this primary campaign has been a prime example of that that nobody's been willing to press these guys on what they believe. Yeah and I know I can. I mean a person could very well say I think and be very frank and say look I don't have that all worked out but here's what I believe. And I think that would be understandable myself. How OUTFRONT can a politician be on things like that I suppose after he has been elected. Can you talk about plans or must you wait until the plan is set before you let the public know or what was your philosophy about that when you were governor.

Well I tried hard not to make promises that I couldn't possibly keep going on I'm not taking a shot at anyone when I say that. It's. Because you're really not quite sure. And things evolve as you're in the office that you never could have anticipated. I mean the politician who tells you governor or president may share that he had all those programs that he was going to implement over the his four years or six years in mind before he got in office that's a lot of bunk. You know he didn't really he he had certain things that he wanted to try to accomplish. But most of the things just come at you. I mean I didn't when I was running for office anticipate that I would be deeply involved in changing over the corrections system for example or I wouldn't think that I would be trying to move people out of mental

hospitals and put them in community based centers that came from competent people who were in charge of various things coming to me with ideas and problems developing. I never thought I'd be involved in. Well you know for insurance or God knows I didn't think I'd be leading the charge against a president of my own party on the Vietnam War which I did. It strikes me that a man who has given a long devoted service has risen above party. When he looks back above partisanship above party looking back on a new career that such a man or a woman. Would you would be able to perform good public service if there was a role for them in American politics what you're feeling on that. Well it's a very interesting question and it isn't just because I'm out in my family that I feel that way but I think that a person who has been in public life who has

been in elected office has had a lot of experiences he's made mistakes that he could share with somebody else so that they would avoid them. He can I think help them with lots of things. Or he can be the loyal opposition. But we don't have that system in this country and. In England when you are a leader of. Certain force in government and then you lose office. Then you're the leader of the loyal opposition we don't have any such thing. I recall that Harry Truman had a proposal that presidents have gained great experience and when they leave offas for one reason or another there should be a seat in the Senate for them. And this is an interesting idea it seems to me that there is that we need talent and government we need experience and it just sort of put them off to one

side is a difficult adjustment for the person but forgetting that I think that the public loses out. I mean even if the guy isn't great. I think his experiences would be valuable and his voice and opinions could be listened to and not followed necessarily all remember. Governor Thomas you do in New York I I did a book about his administration and I met him many times and he would confide in people that when this was over this long siege of public service that he had to go out and make some money and he couldn't possibly stay in public life because there was no place for a person. There was NO NO WAY that a person could keep his family going in in public life unless you actually held that office and he did retreat rather unfortunate at the peak of his career into a Dewey Ballantine firm which was good for his finances. But he put it I guess the most cross-ways and I'm out now

to make some money for my family. That is a tragedy isn't it. Well I think it is not because I'm out but. In my instance for example I've had perhaps more experience than any prior governor in relation to government before I ran for public I was the first 4 year governor in the state where you know no vote the wealth of any left right. So I served four years plus two years for six years. But prior to that I had any number of years as head of various agencies and so on resource public works and so on. God knows I don't have all the answers to everything on the other hand I have got some experience and knowledge that I think I could use. Well I suppose a governor that takes office and succeeds another governor could very well profit from that former governor's expert

experience in the office. Whether he agreed with him politically or not just by asking questions or or asking his advice about how this was handled before. It seems to me there should be that kind of role if not a seat in the legislature you know. I think it would be pretty good to have a public role such as a seat in the legislature might give you to at least get your opinions. You know I think there should be some sort of a public role and I think depending on the personalities Victor on the loser I think that that can be an informal arrangement that could be useful but I think there should be some sort of a formal arrangement it seems to me. Harry Truman going back into the Senate after he'd been president would have been a tremendously exciting and rewarding thing to the conservation with your life I mean he didn't throw punches. Looking back on the press coverage that you got regardless of what men write

I'm thinking of now the late John Mills of the Christian Science Monitor Bob Healy of the globe and others. If you look back on the press and how it treated you are you sour or do you think that you got a fair shake. Well you know I never was sour with the press and many political leaders. I know Lyndon Johnson would get enraged when he saw something that he thought was and he jumped on the phone and called the publisher of the editor or somebody else. I never did that I some of my staff used it once in a while say Well that was a low blow you hit column this morning. And I say yeah but OK so take the better with this wait and then we'll have some good columns later we'll let usually worked out. I I never believed in bellyaching. Well John to answer your question directly I didn't feel

that I was disabused and yet I will have to admit that once in a while some of the columns I wasn't thrilled to in the morning when I read the paper. How did did you as as governor as a public official feel about the sunshine laws or the attempts to to open up to the state government or are the federal government. Too probing by by reporters or the public in general they have the access laws. Well I I led the charge in relation to that way before Watergate and way before the. Well let's face it there were two reporters who nursed Watergate and we perhaps never would have known anything about it and I think that should be an investigatory reporting and I think this should be open meeting laws and I think that the public in this country if they're going to have confidence in government that understand government and they shouldn't have secrets.

Now you got to make exceptions when you get into things like the CIA. The matter of changing information about foreign lands this isn't a world where everyone loves one another and you've got to do something about controlling that information but by and large I think the public isn't title to as much of the government business as they possibly can be in the minute or so that we have left. How are you enjoying your students that you're teaching Joe. I like it very much and I wondered whether it was going to work I had and I don't. I don't pose as a scholar. But I found working with the students not only at Harvard and MIT but many of the other colleges that I've been working with UMass and elsewhere. That I think that then when when I'm talking with them I'm not speaking theory. I've been there I've been on the hot seat. I know what it's all about in relation to making the tough decisions and

that seems to be interesting to students. In other words Harry Truman said The Buck Stops Here. You've been at that spot. That's right and he also said if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Well I'm and I'm very happy that you didn't stay out of this kitchen today on this program and I want to thank you Governor Francis W. Sargent for joining John Wood line and myself. This is Bernard Reuben saying good night. TV age radio far from in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication for the Boston University has presented the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of civil liberties and the media in the 1970s. This program was recorded in the studios of WGBH radio Boston.