The First Amendment; William Greener

A. The following program is made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts. WGBH radio Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Now presents the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of civil liberties and the media in the 1970s. And now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Ruben. Welcome to this edition of The First Amendment and a free people. Our guest today is Mr. William greener who is the assistant secretary for defense for public affairs in the Department of Defense in Washington D.C. He is speaking with us from studios of Public Radio in Washington. Joining me also today is John Wick line the dean of the school of public communication at Boston University. Before I open the

discussion I'd like to tell our audience a little about you Bill and I'll start off by by boasting about the most important thing and that is that you've got your master sponsor Boston University from our school in 1967 and since that time it's been a direct route to two public involvement. You've been the director of public affairs in the Internal Revenue Service and been the secretary of public affairs in the Treasury Department in 1970 to then on to the cost of living Council Housing and Urban Development Office of the budget and your latest. Latest endeavors were as deputy press secretary to the president in the White House in 1975. Can't seem to hold a job Ernie can seem to hold a job something I'm worried about there but it does show progress because you've had the most interesting job that a man in the information business can have in our you know our national government.

You've also been very much involved as a former Air Force officer. I think the audience should know you retired as a lieutenant colonel and served with some distinction for many years and service that included Vietnam now with all that to do behind us. Justified commentary. Let me get to the first question. All right. And this is it. What can you tell us Bill Greener about the improvements that are being made or contemplated to increase the amount of good information available to the American people from the Department of Defense. Well Bernie there are a number of mechanical things you can name such as with the passage of the Freedom of Information and the establishment of an office within the office of the assistant secretary for Public Affairs. We have managed to in effect shake a great deal more out of the bureaucracy. However frankly regardless of what you list in the way of plans or anything else it all

boils down to the attitude of the people involved. And with President Ford being as open as he is. Secretary Defense Don Rumsfeld who is adamant on the subject of putting out the legitimate news as quickly and as rapidly as possible and as you know that's always been my philosophy. I would think that that while you can write rules and regulations it really boils down to an attitudinal problem on the part of the people in charge. And I've noticed the biggest change now that I'm back at the Pentagon. It is just that and that is that the attitude is what can we put out not what can we keep from putting out. All right I'm going to turn the next question over to John John with. Well that does concern me and I think it's absolutely right. From having covered Washington and dealt with people in government there seems to be often be an attitude of what can we keep from putting out. How do you think and turnaround has been affected in the Pentagon in that matter because it seems to me that people in the Pentagon have been dealing for years with

what they consider to be very secret information and they sincerely believe that keeping such information from the public has been in the best interest of the public on grounds of national security. How do you get more open attitude among people among the military particularly. Well of course John you get a great deal of it as I said when the top management the secretary and the assistant secretary of defense both feel the same way and backed by the president but more importantly I guess you would just have to face up to the facts that the terrible range that our nation went through through Vietnam and later through Watergate. Change the attitude on both sides of the podium that is that. The newsman are more penetrating in their question and our should say newsmen and women and the on the other side. We are certainly more cognizant of the fact that it's just incumbent upon us to make sure that we get the information out quickly and truthfully and honestly.

Well do you help reporters get to the sources of information rather than talking only to public information officers. Absolutely. My whole philosophy is to make sure that you can get the reporter with the basic source. Naturally since I sit in on a number of the meetings and do briefings during the week I guess I would be considered one of the basic sources in most instances for the regulars that are at the Pentagon. I want I want to ask you about. You brought the question of the new environment and everything depends upon the attitude of the people in office. What is the attitude and what is the new environment regarding reassessment of what went on in Vietnam specifically about the four o'clock follies the Five O'clock Follies those long years of very difficult times for the military because of the situation for reporters and so on and so forth. Is there some basic reassessment going on so that in the future. Moment of crisis or years of crisis for the United States we will not repeat

that that hard slogging road through the joint United States Public Affairs Office which so many reporters those who are subjective on Wednesdays an object of on Thursdays so many reporters think was was a bad scene. Well of course having been unfortunately a part of that and doing some of the briefings I would just have to say that those of us that what they are promised ourselves if nothing else that it would never happen again. There is a rather complete study of this whole communications effort being done by the Department of the army and which is 13 volumes and stand there of up to about volume six now and they were in the other day I haven't had a chance to have my interview yet but they're going across the board with everyone who was there to find out what was right what was wrong. Those of us that you know have made a career of public communication or governmental public affairs if you will have you know done

agonizing reappraisal as I used to stand very proudly and say that I have never lied. I've changed that now to say I've never knowingly lied to the public because I found out subsequent to a number of things that I was told that I was frankly told inaccurately or at least not completely truthful or honest. So that would be the the main things are happening now as for the mechanics as I mentioned earlier the Freedom of Information Act the Privacy Act a number of things are coming out into being now that are healthy and are being approached at least in the Department of Defense from the point of view of what can we do to get this out not what can we do to block it. And I've just noticed a tremendous attitudinal change in the seven or eight years that have passed since I was there before. Could I could I just have a follow up question if you go on back to John for the next one. You mention this department of the Army study and I would like to know a little more about that because so many studies get claustrophobic when people are studying

themselves and since is going to be a massive study. I haven't heard much about it. Is it possible that you could tell us a little more about whether they're bringing in outside observers whether it is going to be it is completely being done on the outside to do it. You know I don't really frankly Bernie remember the university they got it I believe it was Columbia University is doing the study but. I have and as I said gotten into it myself I just ran into the study in the last few days and but I was very impressed with the way he was going about it. Very good John. Bill you said something about not knowingly lying to the public. It's very interesting what you're saying that you think the situation has changed drastically since since people were trying to deceive the public and some of these matters as a press officer an information officer a press secretary protect himself or protect herself against being used in that way.

Is there any guarantees that that you can see or any any measures that you can take to protect yourself and your own integrity in that situation. Well of course nothing replaces experience. Yes. And the fact that you can go in and look at it with a wary eye would think that the good press officer today is asking the same type of skeptical questions that were being asked of him by the media and instead of just accepting the answer immediately they go back and do some double checking. A classic example of that in recent months or since I've been at the Pentagon was a story that the Christian Science Monitor came out with to the effect that there was some training going on believe it. Fort Benning for some mercenaries to go to Angola. It was completely unfounded. But the initial check the answer was No and everybody said we'll run right out and say that's not so and I said just stand by a minute I want to make sure that everyone says that. And so we just completely

check with everybody on it that we possibly could. Down at Benning with all of the government through the National Security Council everyplace found absolutely nothing to the story and then went out and knocked it down and. That is what I would really think is the way you mainly protect yourself just don't run with the initial answer that someone gives you. Bill on that point you may remember that Adam Yarmolinsky did a study for the Twentieth Century Fund back published in 1971 called the military establishment. And in that study he has a chapter on the Pentagon's handling of news. One of the points that he makes is that many of the reporters who get the news don't go to the public affairs officers either of the Department of Defense or Army Navy Air Force that sort of thing. But any other place in government Bernie pardon or any other place in government I would think that John would have to back me on that you know that the better the reporter the better the sources. Well he was really implying in a way that when you have a tight ship run his

example of course was Secretary Robert McNamara. He says the with a strong secretary like that you have pressures for very tight information program controlled from the center. And these pressures are compelling and constant now. Is there any way around that so that we don't run into another T F X controversy where one service is screaming one thing another service is grimmy another thing we're told that our national interests are being protected and the instrument is something of a dud. The public doesn't seem to catch on to. Why the the experts don't don't rally around some objective point of view on it. That may be too to shop a question Bill but it is very important controversy of the past and I think its implications for the future are there. Well Bernie you know basically the answer to that is if the question that you ask me is will we never have in our service differences in the future and what can we do to avoid it. The answer is of course we'll continue to have them.

I'm not sure that I'm asking you whether if something turns out to be not in the best interests of of the general defense community. But there is no one willing to admit it for years. That may not be your impression of the controversy and if so please come back with a rejoinder. Well for too technical to get into but as for the answer of the. Whether or not we would protect something that is not in the best interest of the Defense Department to get out. I'm afraid I'd be just the opposite. Always had the view that to try to cover up a bad story leads you to two bad stories one initial bad story and second the cover up. You don't even have to be moralistic you can be plainly. And obviously pragmatic in telling the truth and telling it quickly it's to your best interest. Is it possible given men from Boston to the right to Washington. Well I also am concerned

about people who are sincerely concerned that information getting out from the Pentagon say will be damaging to the Pentagon. But to the country you remember for instance Arthur Sylvester one of your predecessors said that a government and he was at the Department of Defense meaning the Department of Defense had the right to protect itself. There is sincerity he said time a situation such as that where a lie is justified. Not in my opinion. I don't not only don't I believe that we have a right to laughably we have a right to mislead. I tell people the story that it's 41 miles from Baltimore to the front door of the Pentagon and I drive to work every day in 25 minutes. Both are very true statements it just happens that I live in Springfield Virginia not in Baltimore. Obviously have led people down the thought that I would drive forty one miles in twenty five minutes without correcting it. Both were true statements but they certainly were misleading and I

think too often the people throughout government have taken the attitude that they go back to their transcripts of the back to their interview and they point out the exact single lie and where it is true in and of itself. But that by the combination of the two we have deliberately or and I will I would use the word deliberately have deliberately misled the listener or deliberately misled the interviewer and I don't think we have any right to do that either. Well no I would agree you know right down the line that telling a lie or misleading leads to bad stories that lead to many more is a matter of fact because people get suspicious. But why then is there a classification system at the Department of Defense. Secret confidential restricted that kind of thing. Well there's a need for that. John in a number of instances. There is nothing to be gained for example in discussing openly with the world what protections we have

on the operational missions of any potential nuclear attack. Well no I think that that is probably an obvious classification but who does the classifying all down the line. Classification has been used in the past for instance to cover up cost overruns. Oh how can you have even voided. Well well let me just say one thing that that is the freedom of information and security review office and that is now in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs spends a great deal of time declassifying everything they possibly can. Not only do they do it for cost overruns there's the classic story of the days in the Pentagon where you simply stop stamped top secret on a document just to make sure the bosses would read it. Sure. But this is not as prevalent as it was there has been a cutback. But again it's a long attitudinal thing to

wear what is correct and proper. Biggest problem or the biggest problem I find in a field of public affairs is not the overclassification of necessary documents but where a decision has not been made and the questions are being asked as to what are you looking at while still in the decision making process. It's perfectly legitimate for the reporter to want to know that it's also absolutely correct that the public should know what were the factors that went into the decision making. But I don't think that it can very well be done at the time that you're still in the middle of the process and frequently the stories begin starting before you're ready to actually announce the results. And that's where I found my biggest problem. There was a report in the press the other day March 25th exactly that in the government in general the secrecy labeling was found much more severely limited than it had been enticed used in the Senate. The Department of Defense the number of

officers entitled to my papers for the executive branch was down by 82 percent. Now is this. If that is true first and secondly if that is true does this mean that there has been a very strong reaction within the Department of Defense to to this plethora of classification of secrecy and whatnot of the past. Well I can't validate the 82 percent for you right now Bernie but I would say this that there has been a strong reaction and an effort to limit the number of people that do it. But I would like to mislead you John of the public by indicating that the mere fact that you cut down the number that do the classification that you're cutting down the tendency of some individuals somewhere to over classified. That will remain to be a problem and again it's an attitudinal problem one in which you just continually work at.

Now when you classify something Bill today and I say something appears on somebodies desk is it just the attitude of the officer using professional judgment without any declaration of reason in writing. What is the procedure now I know to declassify that you usually in the past had to have some reason for it but to classify you use professional judgment is this still true or am I just a bit off the track here. You're a little off they say there are reasons for the classification where this finds itself being compound it. Bernie is where someone is writing a paper. He takes data from three other classified papers and classified according to them that's a highly cost. He classifies it according to the most highly classified source. The one thing that has been most helpful in recent years has been that when you classify something you mark what paragraph of that is classified so that if the remainder of you know if you take the one paragraph out the remainder may be totally unclassified and that's been a big help in the last eight to ten years.

Has there been any directive to get people to sanitize documents in which there is that paragraph of great classification high classification which could be taken out and get them to take it out rather than to put it in to keep the whole document all checked. Absolutely there are a number of directives and more than that there's an active effort on the part of my office to do just that. In every instance you talked about a review process on classification could you tell us something about how that is done. Well within the office I have as I said the Office of Security Review and the freedom of information combined office and. Almost every document that any document that's requested goes through there to see if we can clear it immediately and get it out to the person. But there are a number of things in which we instigate the rapid release of it. And let's get it out and clear it in stay often declassified in there some 44 people in there that work.

Some very long hours to make sure that we get everything out we possibly can. We still run into it. The Cal brothers are presently working on a book about Vietnam and there was a report that came in and we had a great deal of coordination to effect with the State Department and within defense but eventually we shook that loose it did take some 10 days to do it. And I would like to do it faster but they of course were happy with the fact that we did shake the report loose they were looking for you know suppose there's no no question about outside publication. And is there is there any automatic review of documents that are classified so that they can be circulated for instance so they can be circulated more freely within the Defense Department. There is but not necessarily within the office of the public affairs John. No I know that there is there is such a review that goes on constantly and there's also you know on most documents there's an automatic

downgrading that says after three years or five years or 12 years or whatever it may be this is automatically declassified with absolutely no review whatever. Bill we're about a year away from the report of the Committee on Armed Services of the house which dealt with the review of the Department of Defense worldwide communications First are you familiar with that general report just vaguely or I won't I won't pin you down then let me put it in a more general way. As we know the best information goes to the American people from the best trained people in the department defense or any other organization. If you have professionally trained people or professionally motivated people they won't be frightened of information and they'll be able to put it in context. They'll know the media. They'll know reporters will know the importance of getting information out. Now is there a post-Vietnam letdown in the information officer training and

preparation. Or is there a post-Vietnam upsurge of interest in a very direct since what what is the situation. Well I wouldn't want to put it on a poster. But for a Vietnam situation I'll put it on a post a rival of Bill Greener. When I got there immediately asked to have a study and was just completed as a matter of fact this last week. What training we were doing. Information officers throughout the services at the graduate level at the undergraduate level and within our Defense Information Officer School which I went out to just recently in Indianapolis. But more importantly I have always felt that we missed the boat by not training other officers in the air. In the Department of Defense with the importance of a free communication system in a free society and so I expanded this study to ask the question of what training do you give in the field of public affairs or communications

per se. At Annapolis at West Point the Air Force Academy at the senior officer schools etc. The answer was as you would expect rather appalling. And so I've been working with the secretary of defense to get some directives out to correct that and I think we'll soon find the curriculums for the leaders of tomorrow as a Department of Defense will include some training in this field and some understanding of the importance of it. And I wish you luck with that as all of us in the business know that we've been knocking against some very hard hats and very hard heads on this matter for many years and it's long overdue that the people who are going to be the nation's leaders get not only training but a substantial amount of training with that I'll turn back John. Well I wanted to get into the question of Senate bill s one which I think applies very directly to what we're talking about. The Congress has been in the process of trying to revise the criminal code for

some years and there is a bill now in the Senate S1 which codifies a number of areas of that code. But the dangers that journalists see in that bill are the dangers that are the passages rather that refer to national defense information. And there are a number of provisions in the bill which is now I guess in the House the Senate Judiciary Committee that really make reporting of Defense Information a very chancy game for reporters. The Times for instance said about the use of Defense Information in national defense information in the bill said that it's so sweeping that it covers almost every conceivable kind of military activity cost overruns a new weapons treaty negotiations for bases in foreign countries and military assistance to other countries for example are all legitimate subjects for press inquiry and public knowledge in a free country. And all of these or most of these could conceivably be prohibited by the bill. What is the Department of Defense stand on. Yes one has

testified. I don't believe we have yet John and you really got me out on a limb since I haven't reviewed as one in its entirety I know some of the things you're bringing up. I don't believe though that that with the attitude I mentioned earlier that there would be any inhibitions that would prohibit this inquiry that I know of and that is legitimate and does go on in that we answer every day at the Pentagon. As I said there is this thought and quite justifiable because it did last for a number of years and Bernie and I discussed this when I was at Boston University and subsequent to it. And that is that let's see how little we can give out in the way of information. And I think that that thing has turned around considerably and I think that the in general I think the public would find that there probably is a free flow of information coming out of the Pentagon the activities of

the Department of Defense than almost any other. Department that I know of. Bill I'm just going to have to say that that is a note of optimism and I thank you for it and it's a good way to end this program and let us all pray that that is that is true and that will be magnified by people like yourself I want to thank you for joining us. And once again I want to tell our audience that our guest was Mr. William Green or the assistant secretary for defense for public affairs in the Department of Defense in Washington and joining me as co-host today was John Wick line dean of the school of public communication at Boston University. Thank you. Thank you very much Bernie. Thank you John. WGBH radio Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and the free people. An examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s. This program was recorded in the studios of

WGBH Boston and was made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts.