The First Amendment; Tom Lewis

The First Amendment and a free people weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s produced by WGBH radio Boston. Cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. The host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard will. This is the start of our fourth year. On this series. And to celebrate this occasion we have three there are a distinguished guests who are going to talk about the state of freedom as regards freedom of expression in particular around the world and around the nation. Carolyn Rivers one of my three guesses professor of journalism at Boston University and the author of the numerous newspaper columns. And also the author of two books one Aphrodite had mid-century which has already been published and one which is due next September called Beyond sugar and spice. My next guest is Anthony Lewis the correspondent of The New York Times. I'm sure you're all familiar with

his series at home abroad. My good guest is Graham Dillard the senior producer of public affairs. At WCB television in Boston. I think I'm going to start. With the discussion of what's happening around the world particularly because Anthony Lewis has just come back from Rhodesia and South Africa and other places where he has commented in print on the situation. Perhaps the best way to put it is there hope that you saw amongst all of the misgivings that you expressed about the sad state of freedom in both Rhodesia and South Africa. There's hope in this sense. I'm always both. Depressed when I visit Southern Africa and. Exhilarated. And the exhilaration comes from the human beings they're both white and black.

Who are I think of extraordinary character. Very brave a lot of them. With an irrepressible desire for freedom and for political rights. And it's somebody who lives in the United States and takes so much for granted. Even. Laterally in our lives takes a degree of racial equality or equal rights for granted. It is amazing to see people struggling under very difficult disability and yet determined not to cave then not to give up entirely. When I think we'd all be tempted to give up under the circumstances they are very impressive people. It's a little similar to talking to a dissenter in the Soviet Union who hasn't given up and is going to go on struggling against the odds. So this is sort of the follow up to do is do they blacks and whites take a lesson from the American experience from the American goals of these of the the constitutional rights that we

espouse. Is this a revolutionary cause that is hood amongst all groups in these countries. Oh not amongst all groups. Certainly there is a large degree. Now because of the. Total resistance of the white governments of both South Africa and Rhodesia in the past to any black rights of any kind political legal whatever. There's a large degree of. Commitment among blacks to freedom by armed struggle. In which. American ideals are perhaps not so relevant. But yes the answer to your question is that among many people. Black and white there is a tremendous sense of what has happened in the United States in the last 20 or 25 years and I heard it repeatedly specifically the racial revolution in the American South. The total change in the habits of that region of our country and a lot of talk about the American Bill of Rights it wouldn't be nice if we had a bill of

rights. Both for now and maybe for after a transition to another political structure those of us who are in charge now. Might feel a little safer if we had a Bill of Rights to protect us. Tell me do you see any Joan Rivers. Do you see any move toward the possibility for a multi racial society in either of these countries or does it just seem to be moving to it with the available confrontation. Well there is a move toward a multi racial society in Rhodesia very much so it's clearly inevitable and it's going to happen in one form or another soon. But the question is what form and how. And we're talking about two hundred eighty thousand people is against what six million Well there are probably no more than two hundred and thirty thousand of white people in Rhodesia now and six point eight million. Blacks which is around 3 a little more than perhaps a little more than 3 percent. White and they're due to have.

An election and go to a form of Multi Racial government in April. While it's a it's a form as planned which would have a very large degree of reserve white power and influence. Still it would be a very great change and but I the reason I said the question is how is that the war is going to go up. There's nothing about that election or any thing else I see on the horizon that's going to stop the war between the guerrillas and the others. When you were talking earlier about the sense of looking toward American ideals. I wonder if they see in the sensual racial balance. After the struggle is over in terms of the kind of racial balance and relationships that we've had in this country. Or do they look at our situation and say we're not going through all of this from that we want something different something better than that. I don't think they envisage something exactly like the United States. I'm not sure they just put it in exactly your words and it would depend who they was. But. It has to be different

for a simple reason. Arithmetic if you're in a country with 97 percent black people as in Rhodesia or Seventy seven percent black people and another. 13 percent brown and Indian as in South Africa. Well you know the result is going to be somewhat different from the United States. If there is a genuine. Open access to politics the result is going to be different. That's partly what. I think makes it a little dangerous to analogize the two situations. Ambassador Andrew Young. For example I think is a little too glib. About analogizing South Africa with Atlanta. They have to be like Atlanta the city too busy to hate. Well you know it's a little easy easier to make a transition if blacks are 30 percent of the population than it is easier for whites I mean than it is if they're 70 percent of the puppy. Nation X a fact. When Glenn Dillard lots of things

were happening around the world today that are also rather saddening in Iran for example whether the resultant government becomes Tweedle-Dum to the Shah's Tweedledee or whether the resulting government and liberty for the people is something much better is a very important question for us. I get the feeling though that the United States has been identified with a very pragmatic approach to life and that we have persistently backed any good horse whether it was a Democratic horse or not from a militaristic view point or from a Gael political viewpoint is this. Is this another Thursday going to make. Well it's not unfair to my mind and I think it's not unfair to the minds of a lot of people who watch our actions in these various parts of the world. Our own administration Mike. Differ with that point of view that it seems clear to a lot of people that. In the words of Thomas Jefferson or whoever it

was that there are no permanent friends no permanent treaties no permanent allies just permanent interest. And clearly we have acted with our own best interests at heart in some parts of the world is a very troubled. I think Iran is probably one of the best examples of that. At this time we have certain needs. Which dictate our courses of action in that part of the world. And we have simply adapted to changing circumstances with those needs forever in the forefront of our mind and if it's The Shot today that the Ayatollah Khomeini tomorrow and. God only knows who it will be five years from now. Perhaps our actions haven't been consistent but our needs to have certainly been consistent. And it's left us with a very cynical image. Not only do many people in this country but I think the other countries around the world. That we don't have any really. Strong commitments to our allies that would that would

rise above any type of self interest that we have in our part. I don't know whether it's a kind of. Coming of Age process in this country whether we simply gotten. A much more realistic and much less idealistic whether we're really giving up our old view of ourselves as the policeman of the world. Or whether it's just no longer being able to control the types of situations that we would like to control. And simply shrinking back to putting our needs in the forefront of our minds. Well in him getting practical I just like going to loot all of are we forgetting that we are a revolutionary society. Well I somewhat resist the suggestion which I I think. Maybe you took back a little toward the end of that comment but that it's only cynical to take the view we did in Iran namely that we sort of ride with the tide. I don't think that's altogether cynical because we tried the other thing in Vietnam. In

Vietnam we were idealistic. I mean at least in the view of those who began it we were going to help this noble struggling. So-called democratic ally. In South Vietnam and in the course of helping that ally over the next eight years why we pulverize the country to smithereens and dosed it with a chemical. The following hint that just the other week has been withdrawn from use even to put on a weed in an American backyard because it's so poisonous Well that's not exactly doing people a favor I think really though that would probably be the word or should about idealism. Well it is idealism not something that can research is it not something that that wells up in us there after all we are Americans we have the oldest republic that has existed in one form or even including. British overrode more than a 200 year span now. Isn't that something very important to us that we have to broadcast. Well Carolyn or I have a sense that we have to be a little more sophisticated perhaps in assessing our allies. We certainly simply cannot do it on the basis of bad

guys and good guys. On the other hand just a rather cynical self-interest meaning we embrace everyone isn't going to work it seems you know we just have to we're going to have to do it situation by situation in a very difficult assessment in this situation you know where do we come down where does our porridge for dictators the balance against our need for oil or whatever. I mean we don't have a whole series of very hard to see that this was the administration that came in on the human rights program the Carter administration announced that it was interested in nothing more than human rights and yet when you get down to the rather than the nub of it it's a convenience or a necessity for all oil or a necessity for some OTHER a finite product that dominates foreign policy rather than any of these esoteric concerns. I think that's unfair because I think sure. There are. Interests. Still it's broken. And those are those are prime. Countries have

interests. They last. But it's very clear to me that the United States government has done more. To try to. At least keep. Before the countries of the world in terms of publish today and diplomacy and ideal of human rights and done some rather practical things in getting people out of jail whether in South Korea or. The Philippines or one of two little places on Latin America you know we are trying I mean it's not at. The top of the list but it's more on people's minds than it ever will I guess like I take your point as the British would say. I feel though that that the issue is that because we have announced ourselves as we have. That when the crunch comes more is expected of us than ever would be expected and it's the unexpected. Practicality when people think that we're going to be idealistic and I sort of agree with the assumption around the table. It's hard for a nation to be idealistic It may be good for a

you know romantic situation and a young man and woman but it's very difficult for a nation to be idealistic when they're well I just want to respond to what Tony said I put I said was not intended as a criticism of having interest I think that any thoughtful person who has. Looked at our country's actions over the past years understands very well that we act. In our own best interests and expect us to do that very thing. And as far as Carter's coming into office on a human rights plan I think to that awful people understand that there's quite a gulf between rhetoric and how we actually conduct our foreign policy. I don't know anyone who truly expected us to do. Conduct our actions around the world based on a policy derived from boy's life. Well but you know nevertheless wherever that is. Nevertheless Granted we were in an era of mass media communications. The word gets out where press the last hope that many peoples have maybe subconscious hope the word gets out all kinds of people I think thoughtful people understand people who understand foreign

policy understand. But I have a hunch that some of the mobs that are appearing in the streets around the world. Have a very disorganized view just promises hood in half the shape form that register on their minds. And that they're protesting in favor or against things they don't fully understand but they're on the march and that we are in a sense the country that puts on the march more people because the impetus than any other country in the world today. I don't know if this registers as a as a dissent with our foreign policy or not I think it's a realistic view of our foreign policy causing more to be stirred up than we can handle Carol. Well one thing I might say that the mob threw the tea in the harbor probably didn't have a real good idea about what it was up to either in revolutionary period there are forces that are unleashed. And I think we have to we haven't got a very good job of understanding them. We have tended to Adana fight with forces that are in power for sort of a real

real politic reason and to stay with them when they've clearly lost popular support. I mean it was amazing to see the degree to which the Shah certainly had lost touch with with the people of Iran. It seems to me that we would perhaps the administration did have more of an inkling of this but it certainly seemed to me that we should have. Little bit closer to that than we were and we seem to want to lag behind we are not in touch with some of the revolutionary movement with the sentiments touring within the country. We tend to be five or six jumps behind and then we get burnt worth of it. In Iran was that. Our diplomats. Neither our diplomats nor our intelligence officers in Iran were allowed for 10 years to speak to anyone in the opposition we were so committed to the shah that we pretended nobody else existed not very smart. I don't know the experience of people around the table but I have had experience around the world talking to our diplomats who do not go out and talk to the people they are more or less kept apart saying that we might get into trouble you might be in a village and somebody might

grab you. I think that when you go out and talk to ordinary people in any country as a reporter as a professor there is tremendous interest in all embassies and what what did you find in Who did you talk to and what did they say and that sort of thing was left me a little queasy when I think of the role of diplomacy. I have to say a little good word for the United States. Diplomats in South Africa because I found them to be very much in touch it's a country where. You really cannot be in communication. You cannot have a sense of the country if you are only talking to the government the government is essentially represents about 10 percent of the population. And therefore if you're going to do your job you have to talk to some other people and I felt that. American diplomats were doing so. If I take your point though what you are describing too is that you feel that the United States is entering more of a reactive holds to putting events in motion and putting people in motion. If we have the power to and let's say we have the power to end it seems

now that one of the things that President Carter is trying to convey to us is that we have very limited power to do to move events to identify problems and say we have the solution to that problem we would do ABC Ind. then things will be back where we want to. This Sunday is going to be difficult. To get used to my thing I wonder though about this administration or any other administration take the energy crisis. We're not finding any practical solutions at home in terms of management from the federal government or the state governments that we're just told once it's a war that will be the equivalent of any other war and at another time. It's just that the price of gas at the pump will solve the problem. I think that at home if I could turn to our domestic scene I think that there is great news at home in that the media. Are. As they used to say telling it like it is. And it is not a very. Managed society in terms of providing

charisma charismatic leadership in terms of providing some simple slogans that people can understand in providing some simple actions that people can perform just like. That they may not exist. And the other day I was. Getting gasoline at a station and the man who was getting gasoline in the next lane pointed at the price and said Look at that. It's up three cents since last week I was going to go higher and higher it's all President Carter's fault. I said What would you suggest he do. He said I don't know we ought to do something. But what can you do you're in a world in which other people have control a lot of a lot of the oil in which revolutions in Iran occur and affect the oil supply you know there isn't some button the American president can support no one would have thought that in those in the years since the 73 oil embargo we could have just a four cylinder car and insisted that it be made in greater numbers than the eight cylinder car. Well that is made I mean the size of the American car has drastically decreased since

1980 I mean I don't think by any means that enough has been done but you know something has been done. Mileage of car of American automobiles has very greatly increased in the last five years and it's going to go on up. Not enough I agree with you but it's not total idleness. You know I think you are also I think it's very difficult for the American public to realize we're going to run out of anything. It's personally very hard for me to you know I'm a kind of person that leave the lights on my have to go in the house. You had a different parent from a. Yeah yeah you know I was just not raised in society to take conserve things I now turn off the light. I now it's really gotten through my thick head that maybe we've got an energy crisis. But I think that it does take of real crisis to convince Americans that this thing is indeed real. And then when you have an off again where there's light at the gas station and there are new lines in there Are they start saying hey what's going on here and the president finds himself a position of imposing leadership on an unbelieving an unwilling public. As far as making small cars go small cars were made to some greater degree following the

original Arab oil embargo and having the most fun in the round of the knobs and Subarus. And then the lines of the gas station disappeared and somehow it's well things weren't as bad as we were told they were and we went back to Chrysler's And now suddenly the crisis is if anything worse than ever. But sales of American cars I heard on the news last night sales of American cars had their best month last month. Now that that says something that not a lot of people panicking and I say among other things that the value of the dollar is less of an economic advantage of foreign cars isn't great is it. Well then you're right. We are dealing with a situation in which the media the mass media. Perhaps the greatest educational plant in the country and in the world. I don't think I have anybody being more in the education business and people who work for the media. Certainly their audiences are greater than our in any school houses combined. They are their impact per day is greater. Their influence on any key issue or event is greater. And yet at home if I may turn to our home front

we're in a peculiar period. Fred Graham in a recent speech he's the CBS legal reporter. Talked about something he called the macho attitude of courts to the press and I'll quote him he said there is a quote unprecedented cracking down on journalism by the judiciary. End of quote. He went on to infer courts have developed a kind of macho attitude toward the press to show that they are the bosses. He proposed that the media soonly quote fighting stance and by participating in judicial selection panels questioning lifetime tenure judges and making concerted efforts to get stronger shield laws. How do you feel about this. Is he right. Here's here's a lawyer who covers the law for one of our three big commercial networks is there a macho attitude. I'm going to ask Randy Anthony Lewis better how much time do I have. 40 minutes. Something like that. We can arrange it for the half hour.

The answer is he is not only wrong but ridiculous. The press in this country is freer than it's ever been and within the last few years the press has won from the Supreme Court of the United States substantial new rights. And macho attitude of the judiciary lie that's just hogwash and he knows it. The macho attitude is on the part of the press which is trying to. Push. Very dim remote rights at the expense of other people's rights the right not to disclose something and lead to an innocent man go to jail instead because he couldn't get the evidence that a reporter had that's not a right that's ever been in the Constitution never been found in any case never dreamt of in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. It's just rubbish. Well I want you to know it was me angry to say that the point that the judges by denying that there is such a right which has never been have a macho attitude he wouldn't have gotten away with it here but he got away with the conference of the Center for the Study of democratic institutions.

I got to say one of the things forgivingly my 40 minutes isn't that not even my two minutes. Not being serious and not being quite so. Well whatever I was he is a snotty nose. He was serious enough of that though. Oh sure he is serious but he was making a point and he made it dramatically so dramatically right. The press doesn't win every case in the courts and I don't suppose anybody does. Sometimes I think it loses wrongly and sometimes I think it loses fairly enough. But I can't believe that Fred is serious if he thinks the answer to that is to begin destroying the American judiciary in response by eliminating life tenure or doing other things like that. Why every right the press has in this country has been won in the courts and I don't think we'd be better off if we left the rights to the press to shall we say public opinion polls no facts. I think you're on the right track but still I sympathize with them and I find that most reporters and journalists that I've been talking to are consumed with the fact that the shield laws are a false god to worship they don't work in the States no matter how

strong they are. That more and more reporters are being dragged in almost on a monthly basis around the country to to have their information demanded and they are now beginning to reply as a matter of course. How do you feel about this when Dylan. I feel. Cautiously on the side that Tony has expressed it is true. It seems clear to me that there's a confrontation atmosphere between the press and the judiciary I don't know when I go so far as to call it a macho attitude on the part of the press. There are many states that have passed laws I think there are about twenty six now. Will that protect members of the press to varying degrees. Some of them protect confidential sources honest and go even farther than that. The shield law in New Jersey which can light at the time of the Myron Farber case is just the most incredible thing that you have ever read. I can't cite it word for word. Basically what it does. Is it protects everyone who

works for any media or who has the biggest relationship in the media from having to reveal anything to anyone. Very simple. Now this is an interpretation of the First Amendment that just takes a running jump off of the deep end and shield laws themselves it seems to me to try to set up in law a special category for members of the press that no other group of citizens enjoys and it seems to me that it comes directly in conflict with the 14th Amendment in that it doesn't provide for do protection of the loss to all people. It has been claimed on the part of some that the special protection of the press is necessary for. Press to flourish. For the press to unfair wrongdoing in government and corruption and that type of thing. Without that kind of protection the press is simply going to wither on the vine. That seems highly unlikely. The press is not withered on the vine in 200 years and I don't expect it to in the next few months.

One argument that bothers me though is in the argument it's often used by lawyers. Is the idea that in most cases reported to be holding information that are going to be keeping an innocent man from from being cleared we start really looking at the cases very few cases fit that kind of description. I suspect there are very many reporters who hold back information clearing a man they loved a Russian clear and then win the Pulitzer Prize that way. But for the most part they tend to be things like a da want to make a case and he wants like you to get organized crime. Somebody wants to get at subversive somebody want to track down the SLA that you know people who are viewed as. Anti-American types and when the reporter talks with these people Black Panthers What have you and has no. Contacts or whatever. These are the kind of situations in which he or she is often harassed. So we're really not talking about an issue of a reporter saving a you know hurting an innocent man. But you know you can't make constitutional law on the basis of what is

usually true you can't lay down rules that will bind you when what you think is usually true is not true and I can give you a concrete example of a case from South Africa decided while I was there. Which shows that the press is not always the noble good guy. And the other fellow the bad evil prosecutor in this case a right wing newspaper. As we later learned secretly financed by the government. Published a vicious libelous attack on a black minister monist Buthelezi one of the noblest people in South Africa. And said an unnamed source had said he was suckling a communist or a rat or something. And he sued for libel. And in the course of the libel suit he saw the name of the source well the source was in fact the secret police and they didn't want to disclose it. Does that change your mind at all. Well but I think what we're talking about is a cost benefit ratio and woe like a constitution that's not of course but.

Well when we talk about where you come down on interpretation of an issue where I would look at these cases and I would say in some of these cases do with newsmen sources. Yes there may be a case where a person will be injured an innocent person will be injured by someone concealing the source by report or concealing a sword. But my sense is that it's a far far greater risk to society that reporters will indeed be harassed. Be made to give up sources particularly on people that we don't like fringe groups dissenters radicals. These are the kind of people most of these cases are concerned with. And it's a balance but my sense would be that we benefit as a society more greatly from having reporters protected in dealing with these kind of people. Well reporters should be protected but I think when did raise the point protected US citizens are protected as members of a trade or profession or art or craft whatever you want to call

it. And many people like Nat Hentoff take the view that the First Amendment is absolute is I am not an absolutist myself I think it's a murder case you ought to give the information under certain circumstances if you're a reporter. In the Dr X case of the cyl of this case I think the New York Times in my own view was on weaker ground than it would have been in some other political cases. But I think the central question is. The press claim or elements of the press claim that they must in our society have a special privilege. How do you feel about that. Well first just talking about we dealing confidential sources. I have a feeling that it is not as necessary to promise confidentiality in order to get a story as some members of the press would have you believe. I think occasionally you do have to make that kind of commitment because you won't get a valid story without it or you believe you will get it Alister without it. I think enterprising reporters can very often get the same

kind of story without making that kind of commitment. Second suppose a reporter does make the commitment he thinks it's necessary and makes it and he is brought to the gunpoint of being asked to reveal his sources and even used to do so rightly I think. I mean I would do it if I had made up my own mind that that was necessary. Is it a kind of civil disobedience and if he is going to take that stand should he be prepared to face the consequences. I think a lot of reporters are saying no not only should they not be prepared to face the consequences. They should in fact being protected from ever having to go. The consequences of that kind of India what is more noble than a than a man of the Forces Day to believe a woman who believes in the cause languishing in jail to protect it what is one noble that is well I mean you probably make a lot of money. Finally when you write your book on having one wish in jail and I don't mean the only language 30 days or so and nobody hears it is no more that you've made the point I'll just interject with your words civil disobedience it's necessary to underline that.

Those who are trying to prove the injustice of a law or an action of the state by disobeying it must be prepared to pay the penalty in an organized society that's what Dr. King said and he went to prison and that's what Gandhi did. They made the point by going to prison. And that's what Myron Farber did and I think he did it very nobly and very effectively. But the point is aren't there times when in the interest of. Free and open debate that we take chances that we have for example in the area of public officials we give the press a great leeway in terms of libel. Now that is very unjust to many public officials I think. But yet in the interest of society's need for a lively debate we make that concession isn't a protection I mean a limited protection I mean absolute protection of sources. In that same category. Well.

That's a I agree with you. We will be the Supreme Court of the United States interpret the Constitution has made that choice but a very important part of that. Judgment. Written into the opinion a New York Times against Sullivan and certainly part of the philosophy was what I call the heat in the kitchen theory. Public officials and public figures have chosen to project themselves into a position of prominence. They take the risk they bear the burden and therefore one doesn't feel so sorry for them if they get abused and besides they can answer back they have very effective ways of answering back. Now when an ordinary citizen and we may assume for the moment since our law says so that doctor just scallop it is presumed innocent until he's convicted. And he wasn't convicted an ordinary citizen who finds himself a subject of a newspaper series suggesting that he's a murderer and is then put on trial. He's not in the same category as the man who runs for office he didn't ask for that. And I think he's deserves a little more consideration is it to lie to us. This panel. What about him. The Golden Fleece Awards and a member of the Congress

named Senator Proxmire it seems that there was a professor Hutchinson I gather is a professor and he was awarded the Golden Fleece Award by Senator Proxmire for receiving a federal grant for something that the senator thinks is. Not good for the country to get money out for frivolous. In Hutchence in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District rule that a research scientist who had actively solicited federal grants who had published many articles of his work and been the subject of press coverage was a public figure for purposes of libel actions against the honorable Senator Proxmire. I'm not I'm not saying this is a serious some of the matters we have been discussing but there is a real issue here about what privacy means for the ordinary citizen since you brought it up Tony. As regards the press that's actually not a funny frivolous case. I think Senator Proxmire is often frivolous and has awards for frivolity. But that is a very interesting case on one of the issues that you mentioned is

whether the professor. Was a public figure I'm inclined to think probably that he may be. I'm not sure. About the larger and more interesting issue to me is whether the senator is immune from suit because he was performing his function Congress and the Constitution says that you shall not be questioned anywhere else for what you say in debate. Well you know it's a nice thing if you put out press releases are you being a senator on the floor or are you being something else. And it just shows how courts have to balance off these things there is a real interest national interest in letting senators speak freely and and you know. Arouse the public on the other hand if they begin to abuse individuals hiding behind a shield it worries you so you see the line is narrow. There I think. In the Firestone case it was a divorce case if you recall between Harvey Firestone and his wife a saurus were part of that time of dispute she was considered a public figure because of her nightclub activities and the coverage of that by the

press. But I do think that this is an area that the press is examining. Is it not with with greater care than before to see what privacy should be afforded the ordinary citizen before the sensational story goes out covering his or her activities. Unfortunately some areas of the press are not doing that at all with with the spread of gossip journalism. I am worried about the fact that I have an NGO called good Murdoch. Yeah yeah. That's an important point because when we talk about these special protections for the press and the press isn't all the New York Times or The Washington Post or Channel 5 TV these special categories you were asking him to include the National Enquirer to include that bizarre newspaper that's published up in New Hampshire. You know the one I mean. I mean we're stretching it to include a very wide range of people by the differing ethical standards and in fact.

One of the real dilemmas about. Saying that the press is a special case is the hiding. Defining who is the press. At that point if somebody says I am going to start a weekly newsletter in my neighborhood and he turns out a zero or a psycho styled newsletter which accuses his neighbors of criminality is the need to protect his life. That's a phony issue. Yes absolutely and I think that that's something that you know the law of the couple with the so-called shield laws is going to have to just sort of garbage are thrown out and not thought out. They're very general and I think these kind of laws when and if they are written have to be very carefully thought out debated they can't just be someone saying OK everybody like you has got a Xerox machine can write anything over the issue is should there be a shield law at all or that we have the First Amendment. You gild the lily with these laws and New Jersey has always done this by the way when they first saw it was teaching at Rutgers in the 50s they were fighting discrimination by

a law that contained all the things you shouldn't do because that was discriminatory and everybody looked at the list and did what wasn't on the list. The funny thing is that the shield laws really don't seem to shield anyone anyhow you know here's a case where the duchess behaved totally nonexistent. I'm I tend myself to trust. To prefer. To trust judges though Fred Graham says we mustn't do that. The fact is that the press loses those cases when what they're asking for is I think too broad. But I know from a lot of individual particular cases that if a judge smells and overreaching by a prosecutor the summoning of a reporter for political reasons or because he doesn't like the newspaper or because he wants publicity or whatever. By some means or other the judge will enforce the subpoena you'll just won't allow it but there was a story in The New York Times yesterday on her. Well I've seen it had only yesterday. I won't give the date because this is a timeless program but in the New York Times it was a story about a judge berating an attorney who

said I'm not going to lie it has these follow up questions of this reporter you just hunting expedition here and you wanted one question I gave you the answer for that permission but not the second. Well but the. Thing is that this feeling that you do Sherry is fine when you're talking about a certain part of the judiciary. Let's remember that judges are also people like that guy out Midwest who said that the girl who got raped to do with who deserved it because she shouldn't wear shorts. And anybody wear shorts deserves it now you know help her. It's a girl reporter. You know the the problem is that a great many judges around the country and a great many areas are not enlightened are not very interested in First Amendment questions and a great many newspapers aren't the New York Times can indeed be chilled by an aggressive prosecutor by a knowledge that you have if they do get into these kind of troubles with protection of sources. There will be reporters no there won't be much help. You know the judiciary is often portrayed as as a bunch of

you know wonderful marvelous jurists and this just isn't so all around the country was ajar we don't have any it was the Times chill just a little bit by the amount of money that was expended on the call because when they want to think about this the next time something happens. I don't actually know the answer to that question. I didn't I didn't want to put you on the spot I don't know but a book where one can see that on the one hand they paid out a lot of money on the other hand they worked themselves up into a fine sense of outrage here. So maybe it balances out but it's not. If you can afford it I remember I agree with that you know it's fair when all the small independent newspaper can be bankrupted by that kind of punitive action. You know what. I don't understand what has happened in our attitudes toward the press since the Watergate situation and that seems to have been the turning point of this whole atmosphere of confrontation with the press. I suppose you would have thought that with both the people in the tradition of the turd be grateful to such a tough and aggressive and honest and probing press but on the contrary there seems to be a strong

backlash now. I sounds like contradicting what I said earlier that I can argue both sides question at once. There seems to be a strong backlash now against these very activities that we were praising the press so highly for just the five years or so ago. Well there are two ways of looking at that I think. One is my wife's very own which is expressed in a single sentence. No good deed goes unpunished. The other is. That. While I think there's some of that in it I mean that seriously in that. You know that the public is fickle and if it likes people one day it begins to sort of turn against the next. But. Then I think there's also something on the part of the press and I've heard lately I'm sorry to return of this but literally I read a speech of Ben Bradley's in South Africa which he made while I was there. About how he he now looks around his newsroom at The Washington Post and sees every beginning reporter. Who goes to cover the most

routine story in Washington the issuing of license plates or whatever. He's out there to prove that the little woman issuing license plates is a conspiracy to undo the Republic. And there is this New Zealand on the part of the president which you know everything is Watergate and maybe that does tend to make people react it's kind of overdoing it. You say one thing too I remember just about the time when I was a lot of Peterman talk about going to a convention of the New York State Broadcasters Association and a representative from CBS was there and. I expected it here with these people they were management from broadcast radio and TV stations in New York they would be cheering the press. They would. Seriously want to kill Dan Rather. You know why is that man pushing the president around. They were really very angry. So I think we tend to pat ourselves on the back but we overestimate you know the kudo's that are being given to us by the rest of the country. There are some minor moments of glory that we can bask in that's when

the people in the small. Northern state in the town of Escanaba when Mr McGeough fired the he the publisher and owner of the MacGuffin newspaper chain fired a newspaper editor for not writing as news on the first page not placing his dues on the first page very untoward done. Irresponsible I think stories about Mr. Mrs. Carter you fired him he said I'm the owner of the newspaper and the citizens have risen up in that town I think Michigan is not Escanaba Michigan saying that this is our newspaper we don't like to see it handled that way and they have a Citizens Committee for Freedom of the press meeting weekly This is all very good but that's an isolated incident. By and large I think you're right Carol there's great suspicion among the American people of the. Of the press. Could I turn now to a suspicion I have and that's on the media concentration. I know if anything it's big in America it's better. And big business is big business per se. But. The the press has become the press the latest area.

For the tremendous tycoon and at a recent meeting the Federal Trade Commission. In Washington on December 14th began a three day symposium. One hundred seventy eight to start a long look at media concentration they're going to take years to do it. But in those early days interesting to note that there were representatives from book publishing including. The Authors Guild the National Association of Broadcasters declining to take part. And I don't know what this signifies I'm going to ask you worse it was the national American Newspaper Publishers Association and the National Association of advertising publishers. What does this mean are we facing a threat here somehow that the press is being formed into larger and larger pools. Going Dillard.

Are we facing a certain a sense if you think it's dangerous to the person you were you were channels of opinion there are people who say it doesn't make any difference whether an organization owns 10 newspapers the American tradition three is reach newspaper to run its own editorial policy within a certain framework. But what is the actual fact of it. Is opinion drying up because of these new conglomerates conglomerates. I wouldn't think so. I. Know I'm well it's it's hard to put your finger on whether it's two and I think it depends a lot on the market that the conglomerates are concentrated in. Clearly if you have a very small market in which all the major sources of information to television stations are morning newspaper an afternoon newspaper or something of that sort. Are owned by the same. Parent body you may not have the diversity that you would have in a large city if you have that kind of grouping but. Each of these bodies really operates quite

independently. There are no conference calls that I know of first thing in the morning to decide what our page one of our first block stories are going to be. I don't think that it's necessarily a danger to have a diversified flow of information. I'm a victim of conglomerates so I can speak with some feeling on this. Two magazines have died after being purchased by conglomerates that had the wisdom to purchase stories of mine and you're not associating a cause and effect. No no I worry about that a little but no I'm not one of the pieces of the magazine whose New Times which now there's a very interesting story here was a magazine which would indeed run articles of social concern. It tended to be sometime a little New York you know smart alec e in tone. But as a writer I knew that that was a magazine I could go to when I'm talking about articles about people on welfare or mental health problems and find a you know a willing listener. MC able New

Times. And finally New Times was folded where another magazine which is published by that conglomerate the runner is going great guns. It's just appalling to me. That people want to read about what kind of shoes do it week after week and they don't want to read about you know the kind of issues that New Times was dealing with. But that was strictly a dollars and cents decision. You're complaining about the public not about the conglomerates. Oh my God doesn't that wants to read about running I think they're crazy to go to the conglomerate decision is by balance sheet. When you do have in some cases some family owned newspapers some smaller entity where the owner or publisher has some reason to want to continue to continue. You do get more diversity if you just going to do balance sheet journalism. But unless there's a lot of overthinking to do with what you said about us that was $50 and says you should I think of holding News Times had a lot to do with its own problems that had nothing to do with dollars and cents. Well if it did that it was getting the advertising and that's why it went down.

More are going to come back to her original question and expression a divided view. Trying to indicate why I think it's a hard question. On the one hand I'm very much in favor of localism and smallness and the diversity of opinion and I agree with Carolyn that there is something better about having newspapers locally owned we had rationing a story in The New York Times about. The. Spreading outside ownership of everything in Portland Oregon. Not just the newspapers the two newspapers now our own from outside in change but the beer. Brewery and of everything else and in the old days used if you had a local issue come up conservation pollution or any kind of local issue why the newspapers the people who are involved the beer the maker the publisher they live there and they could understand and care about it. I don't like that this sort of sense of everything being decided from a distance. But on the other hand I just and well just one more thing on that side of the scale. If you think about a state with one dominant voice and it's a voice

like the one mentioned earlier in New Hampshire that we might think was a bit eccentric why that worries you. On the other hand I have to say that sometimes media concentration. Or shall we say the placing of considerable power in the hands of a chain can be valuable and I have Watergate as an example. If Mrs. Graham had not been the owner of Newsweek and television stations and the Washington Post. Would she have had the guts and the ability to take on the government of the United States. I doubt it. I think that's a good a very good point. The concentrated power though should mean that there is somewhat more responsibility either responsibility or irresponsibility in greater climes. I came across an interesting statistic in the course of research and that was that the the newspaper publishers of the United States in 1972 and now I'm referring to support training for minority people for journalism in

1972 came up with something like two hundred twenty five thousand dollars. For training program. They all got together and that's what the pool amounted to. And in 1977 it was one hundred fifteen thousand dollars. From the same group. There are practically no minority training programs in the United States worth a Hooter's. There's one out in California the one at Columbia University died and so on. And yet when I talk to reporters and I asked them veteran reporters honestly what's what do you think of the coverage of minority news in our American press. They say things are pretty good whenever the minorities do something that's worth getting into the paper it gets in the paper. The sense of irresponsibility by giant publishing groups seems to me to be profound in that they don't see that they are publishing on of the scale touching base with millions of people per day and I'm not singling out the print press now. I would think that this is just as true of the electronic press. Again that's kind of the leading staple of a hood one. Respond in with some

some vengeance. I don't I don't want to reporters who think coverage of minorities good I think I'm glad I didn't say it was good they said that whatever whenever they're minorities I'm sort of getting specific whenever the minority do something like and I get down right and they get in the room like they go they get caught and yet I don't think the minority story is covered very well at all. It's covered abysmally. Yes. What do we do about this. What do we do about those figures. I will remind you since you use the words power and responsibility. This doesn't do anything except telling a joke. To remind you of the famous the famous statement this is a true statement. This happened. Stanley Baldwin when he was prime minister of Britain and in. A terrible war of signing match with the press lords of the day. Whether they were right in the air and so forth they were broke and he said they wanted power without responsibility. The parotid him of the Harlot

throughout the eight. Well I saw this story in London about that same light level about prostitutes a feeling of standing up for a new law that parliament was considering to lessen the burden illegally upon prostitutes to eliminate the gun. But the one point they all got up and jeered in the House gallery and one commentator said the poor deos don't understand this process they thought they lost. And they are getting together. It was that it was I really am going to write the abysmal coverage of minority can I don't think it has anything to do with with group ownership or with the conglomerates I don't know whether you are making that connection or not. You could be right at the local level I receive that it is a local I received a communication the other day from somebody in another part of the country asking whether he would use his organization to support a minority in the media study. And

the answer was No. Because putting money into local programming provided a greater multiplier. I get these letters all the time. I don't know what to do with them. I can appreciate your problem neither do we. Changing this situation of coverage and in the minority community dollars is a commitment that each individual station on the individual nothing is going to have to make and unfortunately it involves making some. Decisions that some of the station seem extremely resistant to making. And it has to do with power only in the sense that stations are unwilling to share power at management level areas and at management level decision making. It has to do with a greater sensitivity to minority issues. It has to do with being willing to share air time. It has to do with opening up newsrooms to regular cover to minority stories. This is just the most the

slowest most nerve racking process that can possibly be imagined. We were talking earlier before we went on the air about the era of riots in Washington and. Watson and other major cities. And. I was working as a news reporter in Washington the time that they went through their difficulties and the sudden explosion and sensitivity to what they. Thought were minority issues was was truly stunning suddenly they couldn't do enough. But it's that kind of almost fake issue the that is required to bring about a new sensibility and then again when the issue dies down the sensibility which was really never there at all disappears. Well that's two and I think it's not only a race issue it's a class issue. You look at the structure of most managers in news operations and they are by and large white male middle class affluent. You take somebody who lives in Long Island gets on the Long Island railroad goes into the Times every day eats a nice restaurant goes home.

They are not going to think about doing stories on a kid getting beat by rock because their kids haven't gotten bitten by a rat. They might do a story on declining as a tease because their kids are having trouble getting into college but if you are mad you know structure is of a certain class that doesn't deal with the problems that other groups or other classes deal with on a daily basis. You can have a hard time getting those stories translated into daily practice. You're slightly unfair there I say. I dare say that the New York Times would have would rush to have a story about the problem of S.A.T.. But I think we also have a story about the children getting bitten by rats. I think so. Well pasta. But I've you know I've had to dealings with the times at which I've dealt with editors who were somewhat less than sensitive to certain kinds of oh don't worry. I mean it's not the times it's the Washington Post it's the you know the Des Moines Register just like you said I'm coming in on the Long Island Railroad

I'm hearing you know. But what's also disturbing about that is that the press has often called you know jokingly the fourth estate except that no one jokes about it anymore. It's something that we come to take very seriously. And we we've come to take very seriously our role as the fourth branch of government who is higher and purer and moral and more disinterested. And it's up to us to look into all these other branches and be sure that they're doing. I got to I got a nice note from one of these higher and more involved people who is a publisher of American one of the American major newspapers who said to me in answer to my request quote We do not choose to share with you our data on minority minorities at this paper who are working on editorial departments. Well you know a study of minorities in the media. Let them eat cake. And I think I'm very pleased to have had this discussion. I must tell my guesses tell my audience we have just begun our discussion I'm only down to the

second checkpoint on my list too. But I do want to thank you very sincerely Carolyn rivers. When Dillard and Anthony Lewis for this edition are in a group and. The First Amendment and a free people weekly examination of civil liberties in the media guide to the 70s. The program was produced in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Why didn't you do ph radio Boston which is solely responsible for its carpet. This is the station program exchange.