The First Amendment; Michael Pister

Why. 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 Rubin. What should be the United States position on information questions of our day. Well to people that are with me today certainly have some pretty good clues as to

what we should do in regard to information policies Visa V the first second and third world. They are Michael Pistor who was for four years the public affairs officer of our London London embassy for the international communication agency and formerly was Area Director for the Near East and North Africa. He has helped in the reorganization of what was the United States Information Agency into its new role as the reorganized international communication agency and is now head of the Office of Congressional and Public Liaison. My other guest is Robert Emerson who is also a class one officer at the ICAO and is presently serving on the A's on as a professor at the Merrow center of the Fletcher School at Tufts University the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Michael Pistor let me ask you a tough one. Right at the start we have this newly

reorganized international communications age and international communication agency. We have a strikingly good man at the head a professional foreign service information officer John Reinhart. He's just come back from the Paris Conference of us go where we try to explain what our positions were toward the Third World and it's complain about information just where are we now. It seems to me where we are now is after after the Paris conference was over just yesterday or vapors day and John are talking about November 1978 and the declaration that passed that the U.S. Conference on the Freedom of Information or on information policy is one that our delegation which was headed by John Reinhardt I think was justly proud of. This is to say that we have established the

principle solidly of the free flow of information. Freedom of the press around the world and at the same time have kept well in mind the needs the sensitivities of nations of the third world the developing world and have have a declaration which which we think protects freedom of the press and at the same time. Ensures continued dialogue with these countries which have very severe problems of their own. Just a little bit of a follow up. What are some of the new things that we are going to do or are contemplating that will not only ease tension but really show the sincerity with which we approach developing countries and their complaints about domination by the technological states of the world. I think we have shown on this. This was this was a strong American initiative. We have shown not only the willingness to help these countries in the

development of their own strong institutions of information but we have we are about to give practical help to that. That is to say with with with American professionals and educators in the field in the media related fields working with them and with the institutions in those countries themselves to help them build up for their own needs. A strong communication and information system the delicacy there is in not having a country which has an advanced technology reach out a hand from above and say we will help you to be like us. The real thing is to is to engage with the people of the country concerned in the problems they face in in making sure that they are that they can reflect their own

society that they can reflect their own needs in this in this world in which there is instant communication and very often instant misapprehension. Bob Emerson what shoals are we likely to run up on even with the best of intentions as we try to do this thing honestly. Well it seems to me this is evident in some of the press comment that is invisible in this country since the you know school conference ended questioning whether there should have been any compromise whatsoever on the principle of press freedom. Well it seems to me that this principle has not been compromised but that certainly is one of the shoals to be able to to help ourselves. And that is to say representatives of media universities and government to understand truly the third world perspective and problems as they see it in order to be of in the best position to really communicate with them we have to know what their

perspective is before we can really communicate with other parts of the world it seems to me. And for that reason one of the things as we navigate through these shoals. Has to be to seek ways in which we are representatives of the advanced countries of the advanced Western nations particularly can without sacrificing the principles that are important to us can come to understand their points of view better. And so we need some education and training in that sense too. I remember while the Paris Conference of you know school on information was going on the government got a clear signal from the New York Times visa via an editorial which had language like what has the New York Times got to negotiate with. And if it came to the question of giving up the First Amendment or UNESCO's let's give up UNESCO's I don't think that they were deadly serious about what they were trying to get the message through as bluntly as they could. That is one of the circumstance is it not Michael Pistor that in many third

world countries the people who are talking to us actually direct in a very strong way the information flows whereas our people. I see a State Department must be responsive to all sorts of chords. That's right I think the Times or The Times follow that editorial up with one just the other day after the declaration had passed in which I think they said the foolish deed is done. They felt that there had if there had not been compromise with the idea of absolute untrammeled freedom of the press. That is to say of American reporters and others to ferret out what news they could from wherever it was that this in some way had been compromised had been given away by us I think the fact there was that the principle was not compromised that there are indeed countries which whatever whatever declaration you you will agree to will make very sure that the news that is reported is as close to the to the news they want reported as possible you can't you

can't make an international Universal Declaration. But you. You have then to negotiate country by country with with that with how they're going to do it. The New York Times has a very good point the American press has a very good point we cannot give up this principle but I think what happened at Paris was the principal was not given up and that the choice was not between no declaration and and a good one but a choice between a declaration we could live with and at the same time keep the lines open to countries which have sensitivities understandable ones or or having a declaration passed without us you know which these tendencies toward control and management of the news and hostility toward toward the West and its institutions grow. And we have no way of reaching across those. For the New York Times for for the rest of the free press might even add to that that one one of the things that the declaration that it comes out of that meeting

kind of represents is a recognition that indeed there are two general systems of media function of press function in the world powers freedom of the press and as pure as we can make it. And the other style which is represented by the Soviet Union and those who wish to emulate them. But the recognition of the fact that neither side is really going to change its style or its approach to this. So we have to learn somehow to accommodate ourselves to those realities. I agree with you I notice that in the new I see a organization there is a unit in the policy branch that deals with issues and issues analysis. That was something that some of us in the old us years ago plumped for in the strongest way. What exactly is that kind of a group doing to advise the director. First of all it has to it has to identify issues that

are of concern not only to the United States government and and the people of the United States but but issues present issues and issues of the years ahead which which will concern other countries in the world and indeed to. To understand to try to understand how others see those issues we find very often and I'm sure anybody who has who has foreign professional colleagues can find midway through a conversation that the definition of the issue concerned is very different even if you're speaking the same language. And what we have to understand I think to to have genuine dialogue and genuine communication two ways is what other cultures other countries see as the issues and once we identify them how they see the issue what perspective what perspective they see

it from this I think is is a way for us to to. Provide an atmosphere within within which issues can be addressed rationally and sensibly by people from from different countries. Years ago at least a decade ago or so that no one will be embarrassed. Almost every word that was passed on an issue basis up to the director was so trammelled and inspected by a series of officials that by the time it managed to get into final type it was always a compromise. Do these issues people now have the option to to go direct with all sorts of materials that are not necessarily final but. But ideas worries complaints that sort of thing. We are a we are a brand new agency we are we're the result of a reorganization of at least two bureaucracies. There is

always a government bureaucratic tendency to hedge or to use buzzwords that after a while become very very stale. All I can say honestly that in this first of all we have a remarkable director and I think who wants to hear. And we have in this first year anyway of reorganization an awful lot of people who are excited about the prospects and possibilities and I'm saying this at great length but. But what this has done is is is is override the bureaucratic tendency to say things in a safe way or a bureaucratic way and really gives a chance for ideas to percolate I'm really quite excited about. As a matter of fact I was going to corroborate the simply the very strong flow of ideas coming out of the agency management these days that we are going to be increasingly an agency of communicating ideas underlying ideas rather than pro forma

kinds of activities which can tend to be you know kind of routine. So when you say ideas flowing to the top and being being the main source of inspiration I think that's a real you know I think in a deafening issues we're talking about there's always that. I think the tendency of people to think that somewhere in the in the State Department or and now and I see either somebody hammering out the government line and when we get that government line get all the knobs off it. That is that is that is how we address the issue. Really what's happening now is that the issues the great issues of the day are being looked at from all kinds of perspectives. And there isn't there isn't in our business in communicating these issues. There isn't a government line that we go to and say that you know that's it there's nothing else we must understand what's being said all around a given issue. I have a well-known partiality for foreign service

information officers for many years. I always question some of the more traditional people who thought that information was not valuable to foreign policy. Recognizing the full worth of those who deal on a hand-to-hand basis physically rather than on a media to media bases or media audience bases that we have a number of former State Department types now amalgamated into the agency and Cultural Affairs is it not is part of the. I see. That's right. How is this working out. I would assume that that the people who came over were really favorable toward the information consequences of foreign policy. They are as I say that there are people who are you know there are affinities between between the State Department officers and the ICAO officers and and in the ways they work in the approaches to some of the problems. What

what. There is obviously in in each issue there is an American policy or there should be or there should be a series of them. And we have in our information work must make that very clear. But we also have to provide and I think this is where our State Department colleagues who work with us get excited in the same way in providing the context within which an American policy toward that issue is understood so that they saw that they indeed are. I think increasingly aware of the need for information from everywhere and and American policy has to reflect. The views of all kinds of people in the and and and out of government and interest groups of various kinds Nellie's me when asked question if I were a Japanese person concerned with the future of my own country I'd be very much interested in the department of the interior and timber and I would think that timber would be a very important part of my foreign policy concerns.

Is the ice a better able. I know it has tried all through the years. Is it even more able to deal with the large area of concerns that are represented by other departments I can think of a single federal department. And there aren't very many state departments now that are outside of the foreign policy area in one way or another. Michael Pistor are we able to. The A's on with commerce and labor I say labor I see commerce I see you're doing really there as a matter of fact as a matter of fact there are a number of exchange programs which are which which in which we are working directly with other agencies of government as well as as well as private organizations and one of them is the Department of Labor which for many years has has had exchange exchange of person programs with ICAO and its predecessor agencies. This business of foreign policy and timber mines may have been it's been we've been evolving a profession of this kind for for years before the

reorganization of these agencies. And I can remember. Senator from the United States who came to a seminar we did in Britain some years ago with a number of people who under who were try seeking to understand the United States and they wanted to talk about they want to talk about defense issues they wanted to talk about global strategy they wanted to talk about human rights. And this person wanted to talk about peaches and cherries and the produce of the of the state from which it was more a new worker and she came from Oregon and she was saying these are what count to my constituency. And we look at Japan and we look at it we look at other countries in the world through these immediate concerns of ours with this. This was an eye opener for a good many British academics and professionals who could see really how I think was a great illustration of how policy evolves and to be able to understand how policy evolves in another country is to be able I think to approach the problem again

much more rationally. And before I had a Boston University the members of the Japan club to my office they're all graduate students attending various colleges. The other day for tea there were seven or eight of them and I thought it would be a t of about 3 cause of an hour and very polite. They were in my office for three hours and we were really banging out the issues between Japan and the United States trying to listen to each other's perspectives. I wasn't very good at representing the whole of the United States but I tried and they were seven trying to represent Japan but wouldn't you say that Japan U.S. relations really now depend upon a new concept of understanding one another. There can only be gotten through the myriad forces of Culture and Information. But I would add the emphasis on this function of the new agency for listening to others and to help the American people understand other cultures which is indeed part of the presidential mandate if we can call it that.

That the president has given to the new ICAC one of the devices which is most important to Americans that is ns in most around the country really is to be able to take advantage of the flow of visitors which I ca helps to process our embassies abroad select leaders scholars journalists whatever and help bring to this country and then a whole series of volunteer organizations in major cities. As you all know that work together to make meaningful programs and visits to of these distinguished individuals to these cities volunteers can have these citizens to their homes or to their clubs listen to them to learn about their countries and their cultures from them. And it's kind of a fun thing to do. I would. I hope that this sense of volunteer work in the major cities for foreign visitors can indeed be encouraged wherever it goes on because it's very rewarding. How does this fit in with the sanctions against dealing domestically. Obviously you have

these liaisons now to bring these visitors but there are very few things that you can do under the law. At home is this not true. You can show your films you can distribute your magazines yourself to scholars under the most closed. We are not and I think it's a very good thing I think that we are not. We are not to show you or to you with the American public. Those materials as information details that are that are produced for use overseas. But is that not too stringent. For example should they not be made available to classes on an easier pattern than than now or should should films not be available for examination scrutiny. Easy to do because I think there's a there's something to be said for that but there's also something to be said for the danger of even inadvertently making films that are justifying the government or the administration of the day to people within its own constituency.

You you really have. I think it's our obligation to lean over backwards to represent as fairly as widely as we can. The the whole of America abroad and in this country to to bring to help private institutions mostly brain greater awareness of the points of view and the aspirations and histories of other cultures and countries. But but not to to to tell the American people that country X is a terrific place or that the present administration of the United States is is a Congress for Bates. That's right and proper and I think it's I think it's a very proper thing I think you're where it where it gets fuzzy is in is in things like English teaching materials in. And there are is one of my own case. I'm a university professor and I deal in foreign policy in my graduate courses and

I cannot show the films of the U.S. i even for specialized purposes. I would say that this long the films of the international communication age now it was both hard to adjust to let isn't. It seems to me that the that the law against us I ate or whatever propagandizing the American people is understandable in light of the fact of our experience the world worked to shades of Hitler and Goebbels and all that. But I agree with you I think Byrne that there ought to be a little bit more accessibility availability of the materials at the taxpayer's dollar after all is buying and which should be available to taxpayers and universities upon demand rather than stringently. The only exception has been made is well. The magazine that deals also had affairs problems communism can be purchased through the government printing office and the reports research

reports are declassified and made generally available to scholars on a very close race. Yes and we get them within six months of their actual time that you first see them. There i wanted 2 other exceptions one of the other was actually a film done by us I 964 just can't you can't do that with but there was special legislation special legislation was not it was not the agency which asked for this and you know there was one other exception that was hardly ever mentioned in the textbooks that I happen to know about that when Jacqueline Kennedy went to Cambodia a film was made she went to Angkor Wat and so on. When her husband was president and that was shown but that is never mentioned I said what I think but again I think you'd find that that was a special pieces of national exam which allowed that I would be and I think our new agency I think that if if if members of Congress want to change these restrictions and eased them a little bit for people to be able to see what's going on that's that that's a very good thing really it's more

up to me to say this then yes I think so I think. Do you think I would I wouldn't want an agency to try to get out front of this I think if we are we should we should err on the side of bending over backwards not absolutely especially I can say this and you can't but in my opinion especially after the Nixon days we should be very very scrupulous about which direction the administration has for levering the US. We must all remember that shortly before the president resigned he was in Egypt and one of the great tours was put on for him by railroad train and whatnot and a lot of that was covered very very closely as if he was going to go on and on and on but then when he was gone but the Voice of America and he was the president. But all through that time I think the U.S. record was it was a very good one actually able to show exactly what was going on without editorializing one way and I can testify to that that through the most difficult years of the last 20 the United States Information Agency now the

ICRC has been absolutely scrupulous and has an amazingly good record for integrity. I don't think people should understand this unless they realize the temptations that were always around. What question should I have asked you my wondering I wanted to say was that we're we're in the business of increasing understanding. We hope to be able to increase mutual understanding I'd. The one thing I'd like to leave from a bureaucrat to this audience is that as we've grown and I think professional understanding we've come to understand that increased understanding of the world is not necessarily to like if we can have if we can have an emotional and rational discourse with others in the world. I think that's what we're after not our job is not to make people like the United States or make Americans like this country or that increased understanding is not necessarily to like it is to be able to make rational choices and decisions and Panis rational choice or

decision much hangs to us. Well I'm absolutely delighted to have you both Michel Pistor the head of the Office of Congressional and public liaison at the ICAO and Robert Amerson who is now on leave doing DA's own work as a professor at the maro center. At the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University it's very rare that I get such bureaucrats who deal in candor and who are professionally candor mongers. And I I think that's all to be incurred so for this edition with thanks. This is Bernard driven. Thank you. The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties and the media uniting segment of the program is produced in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. I w GBH radio Boston which is solely responsible for its content.

This is the station program exchange.