thumbnail of The First Amendment; Governor Michael Dukakis
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
The eastern Public Radio Network in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University now presents the Fourth Amendment and a free people to a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Reuben. With me on this addition is Governor Michael Dukakis of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I'm very pleased to have you on the program Governor. And as I told to Governor Dukakis this series of programs is to get leadership views on what is happening in the First Amendment area. Perhaps I'll start you out by asking a very tough one. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of petition of speech assembly religion press. But for some of our citizens it's not working very well. Ten years ago the Kerner Commission for example talked about the American Blacks and we now find that they're not making all that much progress at least the majority
of them who are poor are not making much progress. Simple question is it a failure of American political leadership that we're dealing here with with essentially something that fails to enhance the First Amendment for many of our citizens. I think to a very great extent it's a failure of American political leadership which was compounded during the decade of 1965 75 by the country's preoccupation with a war that we should never have been in. And then the Watergate mess which churned things up so badly that there was little or nothing being done to address the problems of minority citizens or the serious economic problems of urban areas where so many of our black and spanish speaking citizens live. My sense is that it is less in this case a First Amendment problem than it is a problem of economic deprivation. Now some would say well you don't really have much in the way of the enjoyment of First Amendment rights if you're hungry and if you're living in a
slum and don't have any prospect of achieving the best it is then you and I would agree with him. But it seems to me that the problem is primarily economic. It is economic because this country has not focused its attention until recently on how you deal with the economy of our urban areas in our urban ghettos. And one of the things that is just beginning to happen in this country is the development of a national urban policy which will focus in on the very serious economic problems of our older cities where so many of our minority citizens live. And I believe that we can make tremendous progress in that area but it's going to require a concentrated effort by the national government by state governments and by the cities in which these problems have to be looked at. Well to get back to the chicken vs. egg problem it's a question of attitude. There are poor economics because there are many people suspicious of minorities minorities are afraid to step out there are very few jobs for example in the press area all the media area we've
gone from zero point to black participation as reporters and what not all of the media to a little over 2 percent in 10 years which is total defeat. And I would like to press you on that point. Is it really economics or is it attitude that we excuse as being economics in the end because we haven't done anything about it. No I think it's economics. I really do. If we're going to tolerate in this country community after community after community of minority citizens most of them packed into certain limited geographical areas in our major cities. And are going to deal with their basic living problems through welfare payments unemployment compensation as opposed to real jobs in real factories and real office buildings. Connected with real vocational and community college education that can help to train people for those kinds of jobs. Then we shouldn't be surprised if we have only achieved a level of 2 percent in the communications industry
among blacks. There is a normal progression it seems to me for every group through the job market. And if you don't begin with some good basic jobs in manufacturing and service industries which are real and provide career ladders then we're never going to get to the point where black and spanish speaking citizens are penetrating in large numbers. Some of the more attractive if you will professions that generally are the next step after there has been this kind of basic employment opportunity and all you have to do is go to those places where it is working I was in Springfield for example a few days ago at the digital equipment plant in the center of Springfield which employs some 750 people 60 percent of whom were minority citizens and many of whom were on welfare and unemployment before they arrived at the digital plant. The sense of hope and confidence that one experiences in that plant among people who not too long
ago were living from hand to mouth on a public dole is remarkable and I don't have any doubt that that's the way we're going to bring our minority citizens and their communities. Into the 20th century end of the American dream and then from there on to the creative work of the professions and in other places. Well of course I appreciate that and I know your own attitude is absolutely splendid in your own work to it to increase the opportunities for minorities is splendid but nevertheless there is a hang up here. We're all we're all grandchildren great grandchildren of immigrants here on this table and yet this particular group of blacks Chicanos American Indians. They seem to be on a stall. It seems to me that they're getting more and more frustrated. The the two Americas threat of the Kerner Commission still has to be faced. I'm not sure that that are explaining organ to the press. There are political participants the politicians the statesman are doing enough. I have a
feeling that we're coasting describing everything to each other all the time as we did with the desegregation issue when so many politicians including one or two in Massachusetts said Of course I urge you to support the people that are getting on those buses and protect the children while I myself don't agree with letting everybody know what their position was and then it turned out that there was no push ahead. I think that's a very reasonable observation. The question is is this country going to get its act together and is it going to begin to use the enormous amount of wealth that is represented the United States to target in on the very special economic problems. And these are structural problems and not problems that lend themselves to fiscal and monetary tinkering these are problems that we had in the 60s when we had national unemployment rates of three or four percent. We had in the 50s we had in the 30s to target in on those specific economic problems and
that means jobs it means real jobs it means jobs in these communities not 35 miles away in one 28 of 495. It means jobs that young people can see and taste and touch and work at in the summertime as they're going through school. We don't have that in this country. We could have it in my opinion I don't there's any question that the combined resources of federal and state governments working with city leadership and minority leadership can achieve it. It's a matter of will isn't it. It's a matter of will and it's a matter of understanding as we did not in the 60s incidentally despite all of the money that was poured into Great Society programs that in the last analysis it is good solid permanent employment that makes the difference. Now that doesn't mean that social programs and recreation programs and educational assistance and all of that are unimportant they are. But if. When you step back from that kind of an effort as we did in the 60s you still are looking at urban communities that have jobs disappearing and going to the
suburbs and going to 120 and belts and that kind of thing or their equivalent in other cities. Then what you end up with is in most cases a large fat zero. So there is one other thing that's happening I think and that is that there are a substantial number of young black men to a lesser extent Spanish speaking people who are making it in the professions to go back to that example of the digital plant in Springfield. Eighty percent of the management of that plant is minority. And these are people that are first rate managers that either would have Elop through the digital system or from other companies. On the other hand it shouldn't surprise us if the people that have made it begin to move out of the suburbs begin to enjoy the same kinds of things that other people in like situations economically and otherwise are beginning to enjoy and to some extent as that happens it leaves behind a minority community which is if anything. Even more angry and more frustrated
because the younger talent is moving out of it. And in some cases it isn't staying there to provide leadership at the local level. It's like that old country joke you can't get there from here an answer to the question of how you get there. I'd like to move us to another issue. And I'm not trying to be comprehensive today I'm just trying to get your thoughts on one or two issues. We pride ourselves on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As a matter of fact we pride ourselves it seems to me to such a point that we don't face up to certain issues. Currently one of the issues that is not unrepresentative of some of the things going on in the obscenity area and the terrorism area and so on is the activities of such groups as the American Nazi Party. Although one hesitates to put those two words together. And many people feel that freedom of speech is a guarantee that we must protect. But without reference to such esoteric terms as the higher law that those who are out to murder
and destroy as a political platform cannot be guaranteed these freedoms to boast or to threaten. I know that you're not going to solve it for me but I'd like to get your feel of that kind of a difficult subject. Well we went through all of this in the late 40s in the early 50s with the Smith Act and the things that at that time were presumably directed at the left as opposed to the right. And for me that was a very formative time in my own life because I was just going to my undergraduate years at Swarthmore and so on. I think personally that the right to express one's views politically or philosophically I had to be virtually absolute. Now I understand the Clear and Present Danger taste test and the yelling fire in a crowded theater kind of thing and obviously that absolute has to be tempered with some practical application in those kinds of cases. But as far as I'm concerned whether it's the American Nazi party the Congress Party in ited states
or anything in between the right to express one's views to assemble peaceably to march to the streets even to Skokie if I may say however that may outrage our own philosophies or attitudes. What do you do for like the mayor of Skokie. Well I would not do what the president or Skokie is doing. I would not give these 35 crackpots the kind of national attention they've been getting. In fact I think I might one of my police department to ensure that they could have their little march. Unimpeded and without an awful lot of national attention and go home. I must confess that I have greater problems with the notion that there is an absolute protection in the obscenity here. Go here and it's an area that's puzzled me for a long time I really have no problems on the political side I think that really is something that has to be protected and protected at all costs. I am not sure that the kind of thing we're seeing today in this
country. The kiddie porn Norgrove pornography stuff which is really awful in these kinds of things whether one can really make a serious argument that the First Amendment protects that kind of thing and I think there are serious social problems that that kind of thing brings with it that argue against the argument that the first MN Amendment protects even that kind of trash frankly do you. Do you have a feeling that the side is becoming unstuck that the center must hold to use those expressions and that when you go too far with snuff films or use of children pornography that you may be tearing down the very you know I Drucker I think there are signs of very serious long run social implications to that kind of thing. Now that doesn't mean that you know all cases you can prevent it I mean we know that prohibiting anything brings with it some kind of counter response but I just don't know whether our society any free society.
Really has to go so far as to say that the First Amendment guarantees protect somebody who makes a snuff film a snuff movie or somebody who is engaging in child pornography I mean it really seems to me at that point that that the spiritual health of a society the attitude of people about themselves and their fellow citizens and their children in the rest of it have to be considerate. So I guess what I'm saying to you is that I'm a little less absolute about the First Amendment to come to that kind of thing than I am about political expression which it seems to me has to be safeguarded protected. I noticed a great deal of concern over the subject when I did some of these programs this summer in London with people from the British ship press services in the British government. They they're worried about their national front and they're not so worried about obscenities as we are. They take the Danish attitude. Is it a problem that our press takes this as
a problem but doesn't realize that the press itself is changing partially into a sensationalist press there. I'm not talking about the major organs now are New York Times of Boston Globes or whatnot but that the nature of the press is changing and I'm not sure if you look at the 19th century press in this country was really robs ational It was awful. I mean it was a kind of yellow journalism that makes even some of the stuff we see today look very tame by comparison. There was no sense of responsibility. Newspapers used to take off after political figures in the most outrageous way and frankly on the political and public affairs side of things I think our press these days a lot more responsible it was in the eight hundred twenty eight thousand thirty eight hundred forty period in this country. But there's no question that. In the area of pornography there is an enormous amount of stuff that's being published and printed these days. And that troubles me. I must say you know it is no answer that comes to your mind of mine except that
it is well a pain as the steward said when asked how do you define it he said well I can't define it but I know it when I see it. And I think that's what judges and juries are going to have to do if in fact there is going to be any legal barrier to some of the things that are happening and I notice to maybe to some extent we may be able to resolve this internally without the need for the courts. I think for example that many leaders in the feminist movement are calling attention to what really is the exploitation of women in a kind of deprived way. And I would like to see as much of that. The force of that movement brought to bear on this kind of thing perhaps even without the necessity for legal barriers I think maybe that's one way of resolving but I think they're right on target because any question about it. And if we can resolve it without using criminal or civil statutes fine but I for one think that there is a role for the law to play in controlling
that kind of thing. I don't want to see that you know anyway on the political side where it seems to me the maximum amount freedom is desirable. They used to say the difference between a politician and a statement was that a state was a great deal older than a politician who has survived a great deal longer in such subjects as the picking up where you just led me as the abortion issues a lot of common language being used by both sides and one gets the impression that for a very understandable reasons most politicians. Steer away from that and always placate audiences. They try to identify what audience they have before them and then placate that audience I think President Carter did an awful lot of that. Is that inevitable or can we not speak out without jeopardizing the entire political future career and career I'll tell you in November. But you intend to speak out and well my own feeling is that both as a matter of good policy and good politics politicians would be well advised to
declare themselves in these kinds of issues to do so as clearly and as unmistakably as they can do lay out their reasons for taking a position that they might on public funding of abortions or capital punishment or any one of these important social issues. I think it's a great mistake politically as well as a matter of good statesmanship to be wishy washy on these issues to bounce around depending on who you think you're talking to. And in my own case I've tried very hard to adopt that position I'd like to think successfully and so far I still still seem to be alive politically so maybe there's an idler alive and I've admired some of the some of the statements you've made on different legislation by giving your position on other subjects that are not quite as emotional but economically as full of dynamite for example the bottle bills the electricity bill ization battles the graduated income tax. Year after year we get I think slugged is the best word by people who use the media
to. To. Go divergent from from a straight argument and they generally win. They put a lot of money on graduate income taxes and people like $5000 think that if they pass this law there will be an attack on their salary. We have made a breakthrough there. The biggest publicity does win on those issues does it sometimes sometimes tell me when it doesn't. Well we're still debating on the bottle but still debating the bottle bill we just got a 12 to 4 affirmative vote out of the House Committee on Energy in favor of it. The Connecticut legislature lease a lower lower branch of the Connecticut legislature just passed it by an overwhelming vote. And my sense is that the misrepresentation and some of the really outrageous stuff that was being peddled around about the bottle bill both here in Massachusetts New England just isn't working anymore because people are sick and tired of all those cans and bottles
and they know a good idea when they see one. So sometimes public relations in the media aren't quite as overwhelming as some people would like to think. I think that's where the argument of those who are using the media. Our making is in fact valid or has some validity to it that those media campaigns are effective. The energy bill is ation bill for example did have some problems. There's no question about terms of economic impact on industry in these kind of things which were real. So much so that the labor unions began joining the business leadership in opposition to it. And that's where a media campaign could pose a lot of flak. For example I won't tell you what university but even at the university level you've got the old 19 1930s kind of letter saying that if this bill passes you realize that we might be jeopardizing our own jobs and that sort of thing. We had that with McKinley and we survived. Is there any way that we could get the identification of these groups who come in with say beer money from out of
state and make them come out from under their their hiding name we require we require very full disclosure in these campaigns. By the people who are making the contributions think we have tough enough laws. Now I do I think so but I think for example in the case of the bottle bill there was no. Lack of knowledge as to where the money was coming from was coming from the beverage manufacturers and everybody knew that. That still didn't tip the balance on a very close vote. But it has left with it a residue of resentment which I think in the long run will hurt the opponents of the bottle bill and I would hope would help to get that bill passed at long last. Governor Dukakis let me throw a very highfalutin worded you the word is ethics. What do you think of media ethics today. Perhaps everybody thinks the media ethics in terms of one thing that instantly pops to their mind would pop to your mind when somebody said What do you think of media ethics is that particular disturbing event or
episode of a negative nature of a positive or negative nature. Well my experience with the press has been that on the whole there was a fairly highly developed sense of ethics that at least in Massachusetts in the Boston area one of the. Goals for the purposes of a newspaper or television or radio station ought to be to hold those of us in public life to very high standards of integrity and ethics that our media do a pretty good job of that and never let us forget it. And then in that sense they deserve a good deal of praise and commendation. I think they've had the same effect nationally now every once in a while an overeager investigative reporter may overstep and unjustly accused somebody or infer something about somebody which is very unfair to that person. But I must say I would much prefer an overzealous press to an under Selous press when it comes to that kind of thing and generally speaking I think they do a pretty good job not so far as the internal ethics
of the media are concerned. I don't have any reason to believe that you know I think there are too many freebies floating around and that sort of thing which influence I don't to see them. I don't see them. There was a time years ago for example in this state where I understand that some reporters were also in retainers to public agencies on the side and I was I was. The chairman of that task force are reporting a public information which was appointed by Governor Furcal Oh we're non non political and then reported by Volpi and I gave all pay the report which brought out the evidence that you're now talking about it involved paying his whole crowd kept that secret we had to go to editor and publisher to get it before the public. And then I don't think very much was done about it for years. There's a method I'm not sure what has been done about it. I do know of at least one and perhaps more cases in which more recently an apparent conflict of interest in the case of a reporter not I might add on a public payroll but in another connection
was brought to the attention of his editors and prompt action was taken it was pretty decisive. And conclusory when it came to the particular individual involved. So I think that the newspapers themselves these days are demanding a lot more of themselves and that's one of the things that happens when you're a newspaper that is held holding others to high standards everybody is obviously watching you to make sure you're observing high standards and that's good that's the way the system at work. Are you demanding more of the public agencies in terms of their public information requirements than your predecessors or is this an area that you still have to look forward to investigating. I don't really. I had to leave my predecessor's performance to others in that area I'd like to think that this administration has been extremely open one inaccessible one some people say to open into accessible but I am not sure I agree with that. In that sense I'd like to think we've
done at the state level with the president to his credit. If one thinks about it is done nationally one reads very few stories these days in the national press about hidden sources and backgrounders and all of the kinds of things that seem to be stock in trade of the Nixon Ford Kissinger kind of Haldeman kind of regime. And I think President Carter has done a great deal to take the lid off of what goes on in the executive branch. He spends a lot of time talking in cells and people say too much that he shouldn't do what they should be so candid about foreign policy and the Middle East in these kind of things but. There's a new spirit around and to the extent that we can open up government make it accessible give people an opportunity to find what's here not only does it inform people better but frankly it keeps public servants on their toes and that's as it should be interesting enough. One of the first governors I interviewed many years ago was Thomas E. Dewey on this subject who have to have a very
good department of public relations schema throughout the government he he backed up what Lehmann had done and and others. Roosevelt and so on. But sitting across the table from me he said if I knew this was after he ran twice if I knew now as much about public information as I should have then I'd be president of the United States in other words rather reversing out if I knew then what I know now about information I'd be president of the United States. And he became very candid about his failures to me. But curiously enough he had a very fine state system going. I really applaud you for all that you have done and I know that in your first first years you've had quite a quite a time with the plus press the Dukakis watch and so on I think it's just wonderful that you know what's on their minds. Is there any subject that that we have failed always ask that question to inquire about. No I don't think so except perhaps to reiterate that the aftermath of Watergate in my opinion and Vietnam and all of that
secrecy and conspiratorial cut overhand sense within government of the press may not be over but I think we've we've learned a lot I think there's been a catharsis which has been good for the country. I think public officials in particular governors presidents and others understand and are prepared to commit themselves to a policy of openness and accessibility that just wasn't there and in the long run a democratic system has to benefit from that kind of thing particularly if the press is responsible and for the most part I think in this country at least we have a responsible press and they're doing the job and doing it fairly well and they're fair to you. On the whole I mean there isn't any governor or. Reasonably highly placed public official from time to time doesn't read things in the newspapers that are absolute nonsense. Would you like to say he would come into your office or a young Westbrook Pegler but somebody like that. I think you have to except that kind they're around and if if you can't
live with an occasional misstatement or an incorrect fact which appears in the newspapers or even what you view is an unfair interpretive analysis then you don't belong in this business. Last question Have you ever issued a long statement that wasn't on paper that was correctly quoted. Oh she's actually yeah you have. There are good good reporters who quote accurately and comment accurately and I might as analyze correctly and sometimes critically. What I do or what others do and all I can say is that you'd better read that if the criticism hits home then our job in politics is to respond or respond positively and not get defensive or paranoid because some of our weaknesses are being commented about by perceptive reported on that upbeat note I want to thank you. Michael Dukakis governor of Massachusetts for this edition this is better than. The eastern Public Radio Network in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication
at Boston University. As president of the First Amendment and the Free People Weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s the program is produced in the studios of WGBH Boston. This is the eastern Public Radio Network.
Series
The First Amendment
Episode
Governor Michael Dukakis
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-39k3jmpv
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-39k3jmpv).
Description
Series Description
"The First Amendment is a weekly talk show hosted by Dr. Bernard Rubin, the director of the Institute for Democratic Communication at Boston University. Each episode features a conversation that examines civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. "
Created Date
1978-04-02
Genres
Talk Show
Topics
Social Issues
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:30:03
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 78-0165-04-20-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “The First Amendment; Governor Michael Dukakis,” 1978-04-02, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-39k3jmpv.
MLA: “The First Amendment; Governor Michael Dukakis.” 1978-04-02. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-39k3jmpv>.
APA: The First Amendment; Governor Michael Dukakis. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-39k3jmpv