The First Amendment; Windsor Clarke: BBC

The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world. The program has produced cooperatively by WGBH Boston and the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Rubin. This broadcast is being recorded at the London studios of the British Broadcasting Corporation. And I'm very pleased to have my as my guest Windsor Clarke who is going to be discussing with me the state of civil rights as it refers to the media organizations and to the public interest wins o'clock trained on weekly leading newspapers before the war here at Army service the infantry and in staff appointments he has been chief reporter of The South Wales Argus blasts up editor and later Daily editor of The South Wales Echo and then Assistant Editor then editor of The Evening News in Worcester. Chief leader writer of The Westminster Press group that to Americans means chief editorial writer

and later editor of the national press agency and London editor of The Westminster Press group. At present he has these appointments group editorial consultant Westminster Press Ltd and director and manager of the national press agency he's just been for the second time made chairman elect of the newspaper conference. He has also served as vice chairman of the defense press and broadcasting committee the Dino's committee and spokesman for the press and broadcasting section. He has also been chairman of the general elections news conferences Committee and a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs awarded the old be one of the British Empire in January 973 winds of Clark once again thank you very much for for joining me today. I get the impression as a as a tour the the British press in London and meet with various members of the serious press and bottom broadcasting in print. There is a certain sense of MLA as in

the spirit of broadcasters and journalists especially print journalists who are concerned. The. The range of information available to the press as a measure of right or is a matter of their rightful inquiry into different subjects is not as broad as they would like to see it. First let me ask is that a fair question or a fair statement of the problem. Yes I think it's fair question and it's a reasonably fast talk problem. But I mean this ought to be a sound that a democratic society newspaper and all sort of feel that they're not getting all they ought to be able to get because the job of good news Bevan is to enquire. One hopes then responsibly to disclose and it's built into the nature of every form of government. I think. Even the better one is. That it is inconvenient frequently having guys made it even more convenient to have information disclosed. So that's kind of healthy friction between the media and any government I think is

inevitable I think it probably ought to be there. It's not that it's probably the media's not doing its job properly but more directly answer your question I think it is true too but not the moment we all feel the responsible broadcasting organizations the CEOs of newspapers and even the popular press which has its function here. I'm not against proper press. I will feel that there are too many difficulties too many obstacles too many unspoken objections to. Ah getting out the sources. We believe that we ought to get five if we are to inform the public properly. I made pots I think this is the product of our history because government yet isn't like the government in the United States. We have this doctrine of cabinet collective responsibility. We have a doctrine which was reinforced to me only two days ago by a member of the present government.

That is information which he would be quite happy to communicate but which he feels on able to communicate to the press until it has been given on the floor of the House of Commons. This is very entrenched in our democratic way of life and in our form of parliamentary democracy. So happiness I think is wrong. I don't see why a piece of information has to be kept secret until it's been told to him. Peas in a particular role but the Palace of Westminster. I would like to see it this close while you advance so that when the employees get rid of wishfully and begin to debate it there's already been a public debate in the background of the MP himself is much better informed. But the last is part of the constitutional process that I would like to see changed but has not yet be dragged. So it is absolutely true. There's a lot of information that we would like to get or that we would like to get out responsibly. We don't to be irresponsible troublemaking about it. But it

inbuilt into our particular system of parliamentary democracy which is now gravely in need of an overhaul and serve the country marvelously for a very long time. But we do not need to start overhauling it and inbuilt into it. All these obstacles that I believe ought not to be there now in a comparative sense are looking at it from the American perspective. Our government has had various good moments and there is moments of collapse in both the state level and at the national level. But most Americans feel that there is no system of keeping information away from them other than the incompetence where it exists of public officials. In Britain on the other hand there is this long tradition that what belongs to a government department is its own. And if you want to get any information it must be either through the parliamentary process or through the press office. But they have no obligation whatsoever for public disclosure of public disclosure is something that they grant rather

than a right of the public is that the constitutional issue that you're raising. Well in part I mean you've stated the situation I think with absolute and total accuracy the bias among the administrators in Britain while they are politicians all the admirable civil servants behind the politicians the bias is against this law. Until it is convenient for the system to disclose then of course they're only too anxious for the press and broadcasting people to pick up what they want this close and this is what I meant when I said the situation we're facing now is a product of our history. But times are so treacherous that we must alter it. And a part of this fact that a great deal of political information about the economic information behind it ought to be available and isn't until it's been presented to the House of Commons. Apart from that that is the effect of the long existence of the Official Secrets Act. It seems incredible sad to visit but

Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act of 1911 means that absolutely any government business that the government chooses to say is secret is secret so that Nationally the number of cups of tea served in any ministry in the course of the last quarter could be made a secret. I mean one stated absurdly in that as not just to show how wide ranging the legislation in section 2 of the Official Secrets Act which was possibly the mobile device absence of mind. In 1911. Well now Section 2 was going. The last government agreed it ought to go this government agrees it ought to go. The great virtue of Section 2 is that it for some years that has been in full support but it is U.S. asking for demanding that this catch all secret secrecy legislation should be abolished. We've let ourselves fall and that's not allowed but much more clearly defined

area of oficial secrecy and we're beginning to wonder what we've done. Well Nancy the old law existed that anything the government wanted to be secret was secret. But was added forcible because it was so good therefore we could get out a great deal of the information we wanted the novel. Now the likelihood is that we're going to have clearly defined as a legislation about what is secret and often of course is that this legislation is going to compass more than we as media people think it also encompass. I don't think there's any ill will or sit in the stone tent by this government nor was there by the last government about this. It is simply that it is the instinct of governments to get on with running the country in their own way. It's terribly inconvenient to have people like me are beavering way to find out what they're doing and to tell the people what

we make life inconvenient for the politicians themselves. We think that's our function. But we are beginning to wonder whether perhaps in defending what they think is the necessary area of secrecy to conduct public business efficiently we're going to have to actually drop the Official Secrets laws which will not be in the public interest. We have to wait and see I grant you that. But this is what we are fearing just at this moment at the present time it is. It is possible that you may want to print something and someone might from the government may say their due is not in the best interest of the government to pursue that line of inquiry without very serious explanation to you and you may have to stop Is that not true at all. No I don't. I think that is a great statement of the situation outside the area of national security which really boils down to the military defense of these islands where there is indeed an understanding with the

government that before publishing material which might damage national security we will at least check with a responsible officer outside our area. There is this theory that everything the government does remain secret if the government wants it to be secret it doesn't work like that in practice and one doesn't in fact gets a trophy off of ever visiting newspaper offices to try to tell us what something we propose to publish is against national interest we must do it now that that kind of situation doesn't prevail. To go into one or two points I've been told for example by the director of the National Council on civil liberties and by some newspaper people from the serious newspapers that the postal railway officials have complained that certain schedules on on an occasion were not released yet and therefore they didn't think that they should be gone into and that certain health information I was told that a deputy

minister raised a pamphlet or something in the House of Commons and inquired as to when that would be released and was told that no search no such document existed. And then said I have this document and was later cashiered it's that kind of illustration that I don't understand sufficiently and Windsor CLARKE I'd hope you'd explain it to me. Well I first add I think it would be dangerous to be to try to speak on behalf of whatever journalists claim to have that kind of experience. I can only say from the number of years I've been involved that it's never happened to me and this never happened to anyone I actually know. We have that stupid inquiries by security people. I recall that there was an inquiry once to a magazine a periodical concerned with the right ways about a plan for the reorganization of the railways

and the very stupid attempt was made to persuade the editor not to publish this plan which he had. Now this just happened to be one of several possible plans which the runway's board could have adopted. It was totally the editor's duty to publish it provided he got it right. Not as the plan but as one of several plans and some silly oversensitive bureaucrat somewhere trying to get that stopped with the answer that is he failed every attempt of that nature. I mean it makes the system look even more absurd. But let's keep it in perspective. A stupid bureaucrat can create that kind of crisis any time he likes. It is not practice. It doesn't happen all along the line and it is not our problem. Our problem isn't a silly thing like that. Our problem is the serious problem that is a tremendous amount tremendous amount of discussion going on very properly among civil servants and outside people people from industry people from the various

services and politicians. About policy and the difficulty of the system in Britain at the moment is that those discussions are regarded as secret are kept secret. That is very difficult to winkle out the information from the official side. They difficult to get facts that you've got hold of adequately an authoritative lead check until at some stage it is convenient for a minister to put all this into a green paper for discussion or a white paper as a legislative proposal. I report the whole thing to parliament. At which moment everybody can join in and have a debate. The drawback to it is that by then the opinions of all the policy directions are set. Politicians and civil servants become defensive about what they have provisionally decided. So it is very very

much more difficult to influence the course of events at that stage. Our problem is in getting him to carry out enough information before that stage to inform the public and to initiate a public debate which will influence the policy politicians decision. The problem is he's taken his provisional decision often before we can get out the information and this is what's wrong. It's now in the United States. Many of the problems that we have uncovered have been because reporters have been able to get to the section to the Bureau to the segment in Britain that seems a great deal more difficult. And also the difficulty and I want you to correct me again seems reinforced by the death of us of reporters who understand the system so well that they don't challenge it often enough. Well I do agree with that last comment. Absolutely. One thing that worries me particularly is that we have coming up into importance in the ROTC a generation of journalists

who are in the post-war years were brought up on the press office on the handout. And I think the handout mentality is death to a good journalist. So a lot of us are struggling against this and trying to break this habit of going to the press office. I being content with what he gives albeit content when he gives nothing. I think it is easier than United States because you are less centralised for good journalists to go away from the press departments than to get out real sources. It is more difficult to do it here because our whole history is centralized after launch of a very very small tightly packed country and its very natural that for sheer efficiency sake muchall are activities should be centralized. Its not not always good but perfectly natural. So we have this different background and it is more difficult to gather out the original sources here that it probably is in the States. Nevertheless its something that we simply have to breed

into our country and less that the press office say certainly that to be used. But he is merely the first port of call on the wall beyond him and behind him when you look for real sources. If there is a weakness in British journalism today it is that we have too many senior people. Who don't feel their absolute second nature. But I hope you are growing up and absolutely sure we are. But I'm highly dissatisfied by the speed of the extent to which we were growing up and I would know that you're making a very valid point that an honest press is not the only requirement it must be a vigorous press ups of energetic press. Let me now turn to another aspect of British journalism since Rupert Murdoch arrived. He has accentuated certain trends that are always in the British press that was always in Britain and the United States certainly what we would call a rubbish press after all freedom of the press means that people can buy anything they want anything that amuses them.

We have newspapers without news in Britain and some in the United States but at least six of the papers in London the national newspapers represent alarmingly a splurge of sensationalist material cavorting around advertising which is a new kind of newspapering which might have very serious political repercussions simply because everybody acquiesces and says that there are four national newspapers on the top at least which are the serious newspapers. Windsor Clarke I want to find out the people that read The Sun in the standard and the Express. They're no less serious when they read it on the subway or in the bus or in their cars than the readers of The Guardian or hopefully in the future the Times and others. Well I think in a way they probably are because they are not seeking information in depth. I mean this

is true of every society. Some people are seriously interested and want to pursue serious subjects. Now there are 10 other people who simply want to skim off the point of interest and cover both instinctive desire to pursue in any depth. I wouldn't call it the rubbish press except that I suppose there's certainly two possibly three are two of the popular papers your web should contain a fair proportion of rubbish but it's not entirely rubbish press. I don't work for any of these papers but I defend their right to be there and I defend some of the serious purpose they serve. I think one has to acknowledge for example that the Dellinger have very much a part that the second biggest single daily paper sale in Britain. Frothy. Occasionally I suppose even irresponsible. There are many people who are classy it serves a particular purpose because. If its

readers didn't get some political insight some pre-digested explanation of politics some encapsulated statement of the national economic situation of the problems ahead. Get it through their labor they get to know where I live only better the better what the pop format. The two syllable words which they try to write. Despite all that if the Daily Mirror didn't inform that segment of the population in its own way they would be involved at all. But my my question runs along a different tangent. I agree with that. I agree with that but nevertheless those tech newspapers like The Sun and other newspapers. Is there not some sort of an inbred duty in the newspaper business of minimal standards so that given the crises in the world ranging from the boat people are being pushed out to sea to the need for poor people to have their housing

improved. To getting beyond the story about the town council that spent forty eight thousand pounds the other day for a Daimler for the mayor the mayor s of their community is there not some basis even in a free press where editors and journalists have to say we can do this. But there is a political consequence to leading that many people down that path of popular ism of the base type. Yes there is but I mean what we are not saying about what lies behind what you said. Surely as a yearling super intelligence is going to make the rules and is going to draw below the baseline below which even a popular paper should never be sent. I think that's part of total peril. I would agree I didn't I didn't intend it that way. I don't don't don't don't believe in superintelligent doesn't really follow.

No it doesn't follow because it. Well some of the stories on the boat people. The Vietnamese refugees we are dealing with stories as a kin to stories of the 1930s of great migrations forced upon people of tens of thousands dying of innocent babies being being killed. We are dealing with such basic stories that I wonder about the internal pressures within the press not some external source but is there enough criticism other than private. And this is a new magazine called now which is going to be published in September beginning in here in Britain. Is there enough self-criticism or do the people have a self-satisfaction here in England and Britain saying there is a serious press and a pop press. You know there's not enough internal self because that's absolutely true. But I think that a strong very democratic society you never get that right. The important thing is that if you should go on trying to get it right you never treat it. But I totally

agree there's not enough internal self-criticism of the press. I wanted hoped that the development of the Press Council would go some way to redress this. And indeed it has got some way to address it but probably not far enough away just in the process now of having the Press Council invite nominations for half a dozen Labor members not dyspeptic members to replace any of those due for a time and to wait not to come forward together as candidates are you know in much of Fleet Street. The Press Council is looked upon as an irksome inconvenience. Up with which they have to put. But they don't like it. I don't think the press consuls been right all along will live I think some of its judgments of really extremely rarely. I said I think it sets a very important things about the duties as well as the rights of the press. It's a direction which I think we should all progress though this is a group all the way it is always as well

for us and criticize the individual stories as they were written and try to redress some of the grievances as professional CEOs one of the problems I have with the Press Council is that last time I was here their last report had just come out and this time their their next report is not yet out and it's two days being two years behind the time is there any way to get over there to make it more current I think currency is one of its greatest weapons so that people can read its reports on time. Well of course it's absolutely current in dealing with complex keeps us up to date on one of the reasons its annual reports are so badly behind time. Is that its current investigations and cupboards are totally up to date. It's got its priorities right. But the Press Council will have to have more money and a bigger staff if it's ever going to get its considerate reports out properly really efficiently and good. But it does do its day to day investigation into complaints against press very efficiently very quickly.

WINSOR could you could you answer this question going back to your first comments on this program in the last few minutes. You said that the simplistic answer to the need for legislation to protect the process is perhaps even worse than the no answer. If you were to be asked by a parliamentary committee or by a leading member of the cabinet what would you suggest as the first step. Where should we go. In Britain where should you go in Britain. What would you suggest by way of the legislative approach to protecting press freedom and in general the public interest. Well this is an absolutely serious proposition which I don't expect anyone to take up. But if I were asked that question I would say Let us abolish the old and forcible section two of the 19 11 Official Secrets Act. Let's do it without anything in its place for two years and see how it works. I believe that if I do say we're going to go because I'm pretty convinced it did two years time

there would be very little need of legislation of any sort. So you think that apart from defense interests most everything can come out clearly military offense is a special case and one has to have some special and widely accepted rules about that. And that really isn't a problem. But I asked for a rules governing government secrecy in other directions I would like to see a two year moratorium. Let's have two years in which we find out what we can know that the government properly keep secret so far as it can and what it thinks ought to be kept secret. And let's see what comes out at the end. I just don't think it would be a disaster. Very shortly would you be more hopeful. Under this conservative government of getting that kind of a response to your to your suggestion then you would have been under the last government or do you think it doesn't matter which party government is in power. I will get a response though out from this government I certainly wouldn't got it from the last. But the stance of this government. Towards the media

is said to be better less hostile less suspicious than most of the stunts of the last government which had just a few people in it with a bold unity to control including the press. Once he said for this government whatever its all of failings is that it doesn't have control of us. But we as a caucus always a pleasure to have you and if I may use numbers you're a very first rate representative of the Fourth Estate and I consider your answers highly educated for me for this addition Benadryl than. The First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties and the media in the United States and around the world. The engineer for this broadcast was Margo Garrison and the program is produced by Greg Fitzgerald. This broadcast as produced cooperatively by WGBH Boston and the Institute for democratic communication F. Boston University which are solely

responsible for its content. This is the station program exchange.