The First Amendment; Geoffrey Godsell

WGBH Boston in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic communications at the School of Communications at Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people and examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s and now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Rubin. On this program we're going to take a hard look at media ethics from the point of view of the experience newsmen who worry about maintaining the standards of the of the press. My guests today are Jeffrey Godsell the overseas news editor for The Christian Science Monitor and John Wood line dean of the school of public communication at Boston University. Gentleman John Connelly who is no stranger to having the press report on him. Former Secretary of the Treasury or alleged candidate for the Republican nomination. Ambassador and so on and so forth former Democrat now Republican Texan. Well all the time. I gave some advice to the press that was the

title of an article that appeared on me the second 977 the New York Times and one of the things that he criticizes is the fact that there's an awful lot of pettiness in the press. He points out that misleading or damaging headline which is taken by some desk man out of context. The the quiet but deadly technique using his language of benign neglect or burial of another story. These are just a part of a growing series of oppressive acts which he claims are questionable if you want to maintain high media ethics. So I guess my first question maybe I'll throw to you Jeffrey first your on the on the composition and really putting together the overseas news stories in the Christian Science Monitor every day. And I'm sure you observe what goes on generally in the press. How true is it that there is this sin of of commission not

on a grand scale but that people get hurt by petty petty problems. Well I think you do get hurt by petty problems. I think the kind of thing that Mr. Connelly mentioned does happen but it was headlines in particular. I think it's not always intentional or not always with malice. If you headline. It's real. This may seem very simple but a headline is a very circumscribed space. And if you have somebody writing the headline who isn't fully aware of all the nuances in the story to try to get a terse headline over two columns that's intelligible he can often distort and distort to somebody's disadvantage. I think most papers like the one I work for tries to have a kind of insurance system or safety system in that the headline is when there's time the rule is and it's 90 percent of the time.

The headline is show them to the department and the individual who edited the story. Well that's very interesting. I used to be on the national desk at The Times and that wasn't done although there was a safety system in which sort of a super editor reviewed all the heads against the stories first went through your slot man after you wrote the story of the head and then editors and what they called the bullpen looked it over too. But that's interesting that to my knowledge no no reporter is shown ahead on the times. So sometimes you do get mistakes made. But I think you're absolutely right that in most cases it's inadvertent see or pressure and not malice. I was considered newspapers to be a form of a lottery anyway. About the Bernard you were talking about the play of stories and. I think very seldom is there malice in the play of stories I think that it's a lottery is that story going to be covered today is it going to be covered well. And what's the competition from other stories in the

paper and they've all got to be fitted in there and it's an ongoing rushing thing so that the stories are put in the papers sometimes haphazardly because they have to get in. But I wonder gentlemen sometimes I let's take the example of a Sunday edition of a major newspaper like the Globe in Boston. I sometimes wonder why everything has to get in. Why more attention can't be paid to more classy writing more sophisticated analysis. Why is so much of the newspapers now not just the globe but the Times and other newspapers are feature stories or or precis writing almost ad nauseum. So either you get too much and it's usually on the emotional side of the story or that kind of a story or you get too little I I sometimes yearn for some compromise between the present newspaper in the old dispatches of the last century. Are are we

distorting news by this over emphasis upon being current upon filling up the paper with everything that allegedly is news. I think there's an ethical question that you raised at the very end for me and that is. The pressure that's on every reporter and I and I've been on two very good newspapers I felt the pressure on every reporter to get the most juice out of a story the hardest impact the hardest lead possible. And you get a story bounce back to you if you're if you don't have a hard enough lead on it. And the there is a it seems to me in the papers I work for a deliberate push to make the story as exciting as possible without distorting but nevertheless the pressure is there and I think that's an ethical question. Do we have to attract attention by the stories we write by the leads we write. And that's an ethical question for me and I don't want to be pushed beyond the facts in writing that lead. But I often felt that you were pushed to the limits of the facts in writing.

Jeffrey I would agree with the line. And I think one is often. Probably one of the one of the greatest foes or enemies of good journalism is the stereotype. And I think often people in the home office or sitting at the controlling desk have a stereotype impression of the people involved or a stereotype impression of the confrontation or of the issue or whatever. And if one is sent in even if it's very accurate and it may be really not a black and white not a clear cut story or tour the thing may be fuzzy because it is fuzzy. That's right. And the the there is the pressure to force it into something more stark. And this kind of distortion. And there was one particular example on the times when I was on the Times at that we would not use a head that said may he may do this. You had to get rid of that may because May was fuzzy Well in many cases it was May and maybe he wouldn't you know but that wasn't the story and it wasn't black and white as you're saying. Also

the the ethical question of of conflict some of these stories are couched in terms of conflict you know and of course journalists and reporters have argued this over the centuries but. If there's a conflict it's in quote a better story and therefore you were pushed. You were urged to play up the conflict in the story because that's what sells newspapers so bring this brings up another problem. Percy C. Wilson the executive director in Roxbury as part of Boston of the Roxbury multiservice Center which is acting on behalf of Freedom House coalition called the press together very recently and there were some news reports on the 20th of May 1977 and they want to issue a statement and Mr. Wilson issued a four page statement I understand from other press reports that about 40 40 representatives of various press institutions appeared both radio television and newspaper part of that statement is

a an accusation thrown at the coverage of the desegregation story from almost from from completely from a of an ethical issue or ethical point of view. And I would like to quote now beginning on page 3 of an excerpt from Mr Wilson a very short excerpt. Quote We wish to address specifically the role which has been played by the media during the past three years. I think more and of course more specifically Mr. Percy I think talking about the press in this community this day. Now back to to his statement quote We have concluded that each of you has conspired against the black community some individually some collectively in so doing you have made us the victim the villain. Instead of reporting to the general public that the black community has been willfully and intentionally discriminated against by the Boston School Committee you chose to act out something called balanced reporting. You further chose to juxtapose in the black community those who are bent upon carrying out the law as

prescribed by the federal judge with those who are bent on ignoring the federal mandate and discrediting the same Constitution which each of us is sworn to uphold. End of quote Not End of statement certainly but end of quote. What what do you think of his point of view that that so called balanced reporting in his view made the victim into the villain. Jeffrey of course without taking taking sides in this because I think it applies to every emotional story. Yes I mean it applies to Arab-Israeli situation Greek-Turkish situation in your Pakistan situation Northern Ireland Protestant Northern Ireland Catholic where there is deep deep feeling that the tendency is to think that anybody who is not completely for you whichever it whichever side you identify

identify with is against you. Now I don't I don't wish to challenge what Mr. Wilson has said because I think when it comes to the question of race in the press it is mainly white controlled black Americans do have legitimate grievances. But I think we are still dealing with the generic question where there is an oversensitivity. Now I think I'm not trying to defend the opponents of the law of the land in the city of Boston. But I think one of the main grievances of the opponents of school integration of the people inside of Boston was the. The hostility of the press to them and one is aware of the of the deep feeling by both sides of the of the of the of the those in the whites in South Boston the hardliners there who are resistant to the policy that is being implemented. They would speak with just as much bigger about being victimized by the

press as would Mr Wilson. Now Mr Wilson would say but look what is the law of the land. What is the Constitution of the United States. I am and I am utterly sympathetic to him when he says that. But a newspaper's job it seems to me is to report all facets all sides to do it as fairly as possible and as understandingly as possible picking up on that and I think I. I agree with you completely Jeffrey. But nevertheless going on from that John balance reporting usually means you show both sides now Jeffrey said all sides and that's the clue that I'm picking up on. If you show all sides it seems to me at one point or another you have to turn to our reporter or an analyst or a commentator or somebody who's covering the story and say Now let's not have all sides what's happening put your byline on it and we'll run with you we'll take the risk with you even if people get

mad at us because we can't balance everything sometimes the scales tip in the wrong direction. I think that's a very very true and balanced reporting bothers the heck out of me because balance means that you balance a statement of saying against a horsethief and say only time will tell. I mean often it means that. And I don't think you should abdicate your intelligence after you have reported all sides of that story. In trying to do a story that interprets it to the best of your ability to get out what you see as the truth or the fairness of it and then it might not be balanced that might be. That might be clearly show that somebody is lying and I think that that's an ethical responsibility of a reporter if he is sure of it you know to to indicate that not to balance one statement against another and say that's objectivity that's false objectivity to me. Jeffrey I know you want to come back more on this business about this. I don't agree with you. If it's if it's a question of lying if it's a question of something it is actually immoral. I think there is a reporter has an

obligation so to present things that it is understood that this is a lie or this is incorrect. I completely agree and I also feel there is room for the kind of thing that Dr. Rubin speaks about an analytical piece the The New York Times does does this monitor tries to do it so that there is a clinic call if you like examination of just what is happening and why. Regardless I mean regardless of sides shall we say. It's in the area into which Dean would move where there is where there is lying or thieving or something it is clearly immoral. I don't think that a journalist should abandon all the moral sensitivities he has to give

as much credence or as much defense to a scoundrel as he should to an aggrieved party. When I when I spoke about all sides I was thinking chiefly of political issues where they're there. I mean it depends from what standpoint you're seeing it as to what is right and wrong and you have issues that I mentioned a deeply emotional political issues. The Palestinians are actually convinced of the rightness of their cause. The Israelis are utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause and I don't think either side is criminal. It's in these contentious situations where there is no absolute right or no absolute wrong. I feel that one has to be careful and we're not necessarily talking about columnists now we're talking about reporters the difference between stable different positions by column is I think that's the way so many of the press get out of their responsibility to say we have X number of columnists that's not what

we're talking about is it. No I would agree with you. On the monitor we are very cautious and very careful. But we when one of our people does something that is analysis rather than reporting. We sort of put in the long go in the thing just the word analysis which is it whereas it is a kind of caveat if you like. This is this is this is this is an analysis of a situation and not just report on having having read the monitor over the years a matter of fact having read the monitor when it was something you wouldnt want to read on the open side of a Fifth Avenue bus in the old days you know wide in flaring and huge sigh. But the strong point of the monitor's always been analysis of not necessarily what happened 10 minutes ago but what happened 10 months ago was likely to happen 10 months from hence. Yes because circumstances help to dictate that for the monitor because so

many of the readers of the Monitor get the monitor when its perhaps 24 or 36 or 48 hours old. And if youre just reporting what happened it can look awfully stable head and the way that gives it gives it some freshness and validity and I hope make it attractive to readers is going for forward looking analysis. The number of times when sending a cable to one of my correspondents I safe forward looking analysis a forward looking analysis. You said over and over again cause I'm all for news but I sometimes think that in order to balance the news if you're an avid follower of the news as we all are as a sensory thing in our lives it's good to read see Peace know when he's at least two decades old to get an idea of what's going on in the world. Yes I think there's a this a subtle question of ethics this ethics that comes into reporting because in good reporting you are certainly analyzing a story and you are interpret ing a story

for yourself trying to check out all sides of that story and then just in the way you write that story whether whether it is whether you're stating an opinion or not is truly an analysis of that story I don't think you ever avoid that I don't think you ever abdicate that. Even the juxtaposition of paragraphs the way you put that story together says something about what you believe about the story. And I think that there's always a tendency in every reporter. Two to analyze it according to his own lights and and his own predilections and I think that's inescapable because we're human beings and I think that that's a kind of tendency that I would I would like to resist I would like to make a judgement on the story and try to be as fair as possible. But because I like this person I'm writing about. I want to I want to be very careful not to not to lean over in his direction. I don't mean the other way either. But I think this comes up more and more in the areas of young reporters that I see today since the advent of advocacy journalism. I think that they often carry

advocacy journalism over into into what would normally be called straight reporting. And although you couldn't fault them on lying you could fault them on at least. Slanting the story to fit their own predilections and that that has always been an ethical problem with me. I don't know how you access escape your humanity to avoid that but something that I think you have to worry only pick up on that and go with that a bit. You're implying that there's a difference between the right to know and a professional way of handling a story. There are by the way Jeffrey with all kudos to you some of your countrymen have led the way in worrying about this problem Robin Day and Henry Fairlie for example is a contributing editor to The New Republic recently came out with an article on the right to know. Now it's a shibboleth in the United States. Somebody has the right to know everybody looks very sanctimonious and and agrees that everybody's got the right to know but Henry Fairlie said this recently in an article entitled The weakness of the U.S. press quote There is no right to know anything. But there is or there should be a right to publish there is a

world of difference between the two concepts. And he brings up the end of course he brings up the idea that the New York Times obviously had the right to publish if it thought in the public interest the Ellsberg relevation revelations or or anything else a purloined documents of Daniel Ellsberg during the Vietnam War period or whatnot. But when they go into the Joseph Califano hiring of of a cook as if the part of AGW is about to fall that or the if there's another Watergate scandal coming out he's suggesting that that the press is becoming sensational for its own sake using the shibboleth of the right to know. Jeffrey also is he right. Well I think some I don't want to to be unkind about my own profession but I think there are journalists today and I think all things we've heard about people go through people's garbage cans. I don't feel that that's

going a bit too far. And Americans may say it's the British influence. I have considerable sympathy with that line of Henry Fairlie's on the distinction between the right to know and the right to publish. He cites the question of the Ellsberg papers. I think there is a there is a question mark. There is a question mark about publishing something that is known to have been prolonged or stolen or improperly distributed. I think there is a moral question. The book to cure my own conscience. I would have to say it sort of down the line. The monitor was a recipient of Ellsberg papers and after great debate within the monitor the monitor went ahead and published what it got and I was a

party to that. But I still I still believe that there is a legitimate moral question about the ethics of this that if you that. I think the thing was it was full of emotion at the time because of Viet Nam. But I think one could represent this as stolen property. I guess I guess so and I think that you'd have to decide that moral question on each instance when it came up. But there is another concern that comes into this and that is the government tendency to stamp anything that it doesn't want to get out secret even things that are merely embarrassing not even threatening to the government. And I think that then the ethical question comes down on the other side that you have. You do have the right to get at information that the public should know and and publish it. I worry very much about secret stamps on government

information that should be readily accessible to people. And I guess the case of Daniel Schorr and the. And the House committee report on the CIA is a good example where the house ex post facto said that it was not going to be releasable there were some aspects of that that that made it a little bit fuzzy but when when things are known by 25 people or 50 people I don't think it's you can possibly put a secret label on it anymore I think just I think that that's a de facto publication and therefore you should be feel free to publish something like that. I think the Dean makes a good point there. And and it is again a question of morality or degree of morality. It seems to me that any official who simply stamp something secret or confidential to keep secret or confidential something that is embarrassing to him or to an inference that he represents

when no harm is done. To the national interest or national security. It's See it seems to me that is immoral. Yeah I think so and I don't I don't think the rules then apply you know. But I think this leads us into another area that I think is going to become very important and be discussed considerably and that is the right of privacy. Should private material that is intentionally kept secret. Well I just think off the top of my head lawyers notes for instance on a divorce case of somebody in the public eye is that if you cut that comes into your hands and. Is that permissible to be published. That's that's the kind of concerns that are that I think would be worrying me very much because we seem to be pressing more and more into the private lives of people. And where do you stop. You know even the private lives of people who aren't

are in the public eye. And Bernard and I have discussed this before because we're going to take it up in a conference on ethics this fall. The young Marine who knocked the gun out of the hands of the woman who was aiming to shoot Gerald Ford. In San Francisco turned out as it happened to be a homosexual and that was dug into at great lengths and and probably in extreme and for no particular good reason other than sensationalism now that hadn't any particular reason to be published it seems to me and I would have been very cherry of publishing anything any such information. I'm completely with you and I mean the question example always of the four divorce papers. I mean I think sometimes we have to start and put ourselves in the other person's shoes. I mean it is conceivable that any one of us at any time for example in his personal life could be

involved in what is perhaps an invalid parenting divorce case. And it is to me it is it is not right and it is not ethical to make public information that has been improperly obtained. And if it's spoken in court all right as a matter of fact this came up. Being not very serious now but in the reprieves of Upstairs Downstairs which appeared on television the lovely British commentator who told us all about it every week announced in an article The New York Times magazine that he was secretly married to one of the characters in the story. Georgina who is now 82 years old had to be kept secret because he was already married now should that have been brought out before the general public in the New York Times Magazine. I doubt it. Alastair Cook reveal all in that particular story in the last minute or so to get him to return to seriousness. What would you gentlemen do to

advise the press if you said tomorrow want to go back to my newspaper or back to my work. Let's let's worry a little about the subject. Jeffrey Well I do use the phrase I just use a moment or two ago in these sensitive areas. One of the best one of the best sort of yardsticks I think one of the best rules put yourself in the other fellow's place. Would you like it done to you John. I would advise to them to make the news as interesting as possible and stay away from the showbiz elements of news that are creeping into even the great newspapers now just for entertainment reasons I hope will go back to NEW. So maybe we'll go instead of the five star final to a no star final. I want to thank you very much gentlemen. My guests have been Geoffrey Garcelle the overseas news editor of The Christian Science Monitor. And John reclined the dean of the school of public communication at Boston University. This is by Bernard Reuben saying good night.

WGBH radio in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic communications at the School of Communications at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. This program was produced in the studios of WGBH Boston.