Whose freedom next? / Tom Wicker

It's particularly appropriate I think that time workers should be giving this address tonight. Carlos McClatchy whom the series honors was a brilliant and forthright newspaper man saw it on worker. He covered political campaigns wrote editorials served as a correspondent in Washington D.C. So as Tom Wicker as most of you know is Washington bureau chief of The New York Times. Carlos McClatchy was a newspaper man of intensity and integrity whose personal charms vibrant personality and willingness to challenge entrenched viewpoints won great loyalty among his associates. That description also fits Tom Leppert. Finally Carlos McClatchy felt keenly the need to champion the underdog and he enjoyed his work more so when battling for a principle. And that too fits Tom winning record. Ladies and gentleman it is a pleasure to introduce Tom worker 972 Carlist McClatchy Memorial Lecture. His

address isn't titled who's freedom next. Hour or. Of the. Thank you very much I like brief introductions like that that that's the kind of introduction of which I want to read President Johnson say said President Johnson said that induction he said said my dad would like that. He said my mother would have believed that Rwanda. Has strong strong people. But he came back happy she did and I will I will try to try to live up to it as best I can this we're in the middle of the political season but you'll be relieved to know that I'm not going to talk not about politics because I think that too many Americans travel like years ago one of the very first elections I ever covered was down south in North Carolina I was doing the Inquirer reporter sort of thing and I asked. The lady I said pose I said Madam I said for whom to

vote. She said well she said I never vote. That only encourages them. And there are a on. You like your laugh so nice that joke I didn't that didn't really happen. That by was. At. That's a story but say the markets are used to it and I stole it shamelessly but I think you know. What I am not going to talk about. I'm not going to talk about politics tonight. Except you know as you you may feel that it's a campaign speech in a way but I am I'm not being partisan at all I would disclaim that in the in the beginning in me there is no north or south Democrat or Republican I am simply talking about the some one of the situations that is a reason for going to talk about one of the situations that arisen that I think that all Americans either Democratic or Republican or Independent

and there are more and more of those ought to be thinking about that is I think that we are seeing unfold in American life today. We are seeing one of the most far reaching campaigns against the press of America the media. The newspapers the television station when those far reaching campaigns ever waged not by people who may be super critical of us who might or who may have some grievance but bad and an un-American national administration by the government of the country acting against one of the great institutions of the country the American press. I will only say I'll cite some of the reasons that I feel then and one of the first reasons and one of the ones that's closest to me is the incident of the so-called Pentagon Papers. And I'd remind you that when the when the New York Times began publishing what are now known as the Pentagon Papers and who quickly followed in that by the Washington Post and other great newspapers the Nixon administration obtained for the first time in American history the first prior restraint on

publication through the courts that we know. That was an occasion. When. The New York Times as it happened we were prevented for more than two weeks from publishing material that we had in our possession that the course the government action through the courts told us that we might not publish that. And although ultimately we won a very balkanized decision the Supreme Court that permitted us to go ahead. The Supreme Court's conclusion in total if you study all of the decisions it can't be escaped that the Supreme Court's conclusion was that at some point at some point prior restraint could be justified against American newspapers you could stop American newspapers from publishing some material perhaps not that material in the Pentagon Papers but you could justify the restraint on publication of some material that whole hearing was a put a match for me by an exchange in the hearings in the Supreme Court hearings in which Mr Justice Douglas long may he served.

With. Dw. Mr. Justice Douglas I inquired of one of the attorneys who plead in the case he said Now the Constitution says in the First Amendment Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press. Congress shall make no law do you interpret that service mean that Congress may make some law. And the attorney in question answered Yes I do Mr. Justice. And. And the worst of that was that he was our attorney for the New York Times. So. So. So soon the net conclusion of the Supreme Court there is that at some point there might there might there will be a prior restraint on some material that the press would be ready to publish in addition to that. The court clearly invited and the Nixon administration has clearly considered and may still be considering the threat of criminal prosecutions of those involved.

The New York Times Company or the Washington Post Company or both or the reporters involved in it you know there's a case that has been brought in is now in suspension against the man accused of releasing those papers in the later case involving Senator Mike Gravel who had released the Pentagon Papers in different form to a publishing company to be compressed. The court also managed to put restrictions on what Congress what members of Congress may do in making information available to the public. In the in the case of criminal prosecutions if it becomes a criminal matter to print to publish or to publish classified material the ease of classifying documents the ease by which government officials can crack and classified documents would give them around to was making almost all reporting of anything even remotely sensitive to a government. It could make the reporting of that a crime.

I had had a discussion with a relatively new Nixon administration official about a year ago he's a very congenial fellow. Remarkable for that fact in that administration. And I said to him tell me I said What do you do about this classification pommy said oh that's no problem to me he said. He said I searched in vain for any real guidelines for I didn't know what I should do is or so I just classified everything top secret and make this no problem about it all. In that way there can be no trouble he said. Well the fact of the matter is there isn't any basic legislation. There isn't any basic legislation that's in things not very well known but the fact matters Congress is never really passed. Basically all this is either giving administration any administration authority to outlast Bama tears or stating how it should be classified or why and what the criteria are as of what all that is administrative decisions continue in the Pentagon Papers. Thank the the case against Daniel Ellsberg could if it's ever if it's ever reconvene reheated moment that case is in suspension

because the government's own wiretapping his attorneys have tended to to taint the case but if there were if it's ever well that that's unfair put it that way because they were. Tapping in some of the matter and that one of the Ellsberg attorneys have to go to the wire apparently but. The kind of thing it does does happen now in. The Ellsberg case if it siphons ever if it's ever carried through and if he's found guilty it could convert what is now an Espionage Act and he's been tried on the Espionage Act. He could convert that espionage act with with which few people could have in a quarrel to an Official Secrets Act which is quite a different matter indeed it could do it in the following manner. But because the government in bringing the case against Daniel Ellsberg in the end the district judge in allowing the case to continue this point

to that point has made a distinction between the passing of information to someone and the passing of documents or plans information obviously as something can be transmitted by word of mouth or have might have to be. They contend that in that case since since Mr. Ellsberg didn't in fact steal a government document as he so often accused of having done and hand over government documents Somebody else he made copies of it and turned the copies over to somebody else and he had legitimate access at the time a becomes the finest in all the legal ramification of this they contend therefore that he passed information rather than documents. Now the distinction that they made is that while the Espionage Act requires that for conviction that is an attempt to harm the national interest be shown in passing documents plans weapons models that sort of thing. If you're just passing information you don't have to show any intent to harm the national interest. Now I see it's quite clear therefore that that provision of the Espionage Act

convicted and if it's uphill through all the coups then that could become the rationale for an Official Secrets Act passing information you don't have to show that intent to harm and that that the national interest in family that are under the Pentagon Papers hitting here I would say that you have to calculate what the possible effect on the press might be just as things stand now if nothing further is done. One possible effect might be that when you think you have material that might fall under the category of bringing a prior restraint an irresponsible press might rush into print very rapidly with that to keep from keep from being restrained. We could have with our physical resources we could have published all of the Pentagon Papers in one day in one fell swoop has published a special section of say I think you would run to maybe 20 pages or something you got to know we knew we couldn't have been restrained. On the other hand there's a lot of information that newspaper men come by where they attempt to go to the government or they go to the people they think are knowledgeable about this and have it all checked out in advance and

clear it up make sure they're not doing something irresponsible as they see it. I think there may be less of a tendency to do that in the future. You may be brain a junction down yourself. On the other hand there may also be the possibility the great possibility that that kind of material wouldn't get printed at all because some newspapers who would be have access to it would not wish to get involved in the coalition. So the Pentagon Papers is the first first episode that I would point to second is the whole case of subpoenas against reporters. Again the New York Times is closely involved here in the case of Earle Caldwell and what the case however this made the most headlines is the recent case of Peter bridge of New Jersey who actually went to jail and spent 20 jet 20 days in jail for refusing to answer the questions of a grand jury not about the source of his information. Because the source of his information was published in the in the article. But the questions he refused to answer were questions about what he might what he might have known that he did not print. In other words what information might he have had here in his notebooks from from these sources that he did not print. A classic example of a

fishing expedition but obviously the ability to issue subpoenas to reporters and bring them before grand juries and make them tell what they know about investigations they may have been conducting tends to make government agents out of newspaper reporters that in turn would tend of course to drive dry up their sources of information particularly those sources of information might feel themselves under pressure. Organizations like the Black Panthers for example which was the wanted issue in the Carwell case. Now it's been said and it's quite true that the Justice Department has issued since the Kawi case quite sensible guidelines about when they will and will not issue a subpoena to a reporter. And that's fine except that I for one don't particularly depended upon the Justice Department's guidelines as to when and when they will not subpoena me because attorneys general change presidents change circumstances change and those guidelines are administrative and can be revoked or changed in time they want to so I don't regard that as any particular protection.

Furthermore if the bridge case shows the Supreme Court decision which was carried up to the Supreme Court by the by the Nixon administration. Is the bridge case shows it opens this question up in all jurisdictions. I really don't expect to see Attorney General Kleindienst subpoena Jack Anderson and try to put him in a jail because nobody needs that much trouble. And. I don't think Klein needs to do that but I think that or any other attorney general. But I think that there may be a good many cases like the bridge case where local grand juries or state authorities will try to attempt to find out what they can find out otherwise from the from reporters and they will be in many cases reporters who don't have the resources to protect themselves whose newspapers in particular protect themselves and they're going to find themselves very much up against it in areas that won't get anything like the national publicity that would result if they try to subpoena Jack Anderson or someone. Of that great fame this is this is a situation that

everyone ought to think about because when the government when the government of the United States or even the government of a state and exaggerate to bring huge resources against one person it can bring a shattering number of resources it can bring you know FBI agents or state investigators Haitian agents or policeman district attorneys in there you are you've got to bear the cost of your own defense if you're one man you've got to face of this it could be a very shattering thing. But one man faced with a whole array of resources that the state can bring against him and finally this obviously opens it seems to me reporters in many cases do the same kind of fishing expedition as was as was involved in the bridge case and even if they if the grand jury doesn't stand that reporter off to jail for for not answering the questions it's obviously a means by which reporters could be harassed and intimidated and at least made to give up a lot of their time and be brought into general disrepute to censure because it may not be known to the general to people who haven't been to before grand jury. I went before a grand jury just

last fall in the case of the Attica last spring in the case of the Attica Prison revoked and I couldn't legitimately claim to have been acting up as a reporter. So I had to go and testify. And the surprising thing to most people is we have been involved one of these is the grand jury proceeding is absolutely secret. And when you when you enter that door when you go behind that door and testify to a grand jury then what you may or may not have said no one is supposed ever to know you can come out and say what I didn't say anything. But no one can ever can ever be sure that you didn't say anything. And so the secrecy of that proceeding can destroy someone's reputation and has been known to do so past in addition to the Pentagon Papers and the subpoena threat. Then I think there's been a number of miscellaneous threats against the press most of which most of which you all heard there's a celebrated episode of Daniel Schorr where one of the most celebrated critics of the Nixon administration was considered for a high ranking job that was considered so thoroughly that they dispatched the FBI to conduct a

full scale investigation of his past. Needless to say he didn't get the job not done. Not our government has passed. There was the there was the then twice repeated case of the once repeated case where the Pentagon press room the desks of the reporters there were searched by security officials. There was the speech only two weeks ago by the president himself to the families of the P.O. Debby's in which he intimated that the opinion leaders of this country. And note well that he expanded that beyond newspaperman to businessman and even to I believe there was some mention in there of academic figures that all of those opinion makers as he put it had some duty to support the president when the president made it made tough decisions. It was that speech. It was Mr. Buchanan who sound of White House staff his remarks about the possibility of anti-trust suits against the networks. It was Mr Hollands famous remarks only on how the eastern establishment met once a week to decide what the line would be.

Mr. Erlichman remarks about the reason the president did no news conference is because the questions were so dumb and flabby which unfortunately has a more truth in it than want to any of us would like to admit. But nevertheless it was a little hostile you know. And I think well while the press tends to be a little bit crybaby on the question of whether or not people hold news conferences in the next administration it does tend to be disturbing and it's getting more so that the president has open himself so little to questions from the press or the press after all in this case actions and acts as surrogate for the public. The president opened himself so little to the press and now this seems to be a growing tendency within the administration just within the last week both Mr. McGregor the head of the Committee for the re-election of the president and Mr. Stan's who's the head of the Finance Committee for the re-election of President both have made statements which were self-serving in the extreme in that there were denials of wrongdoing.

And each has prefaced that statement by saying that he would not answer questions and haven't made that statement with the television cameras grinding away than has walked out. And if you've answered questions in this whole business of which has started with the president in this particular ministration and now seems to be working itself down the refusal to stand fast and answer questions is disturbing in that it means that we have no no way of cross-examining and cross-examining him in this situation is he is in that kind of situation is highly important. Finally I would say that the. Last major piece of evidence against the other campaign against the press that I think is going on is the oratory of the vice president which. I needn't dwell on for very long because all that you heard I would only say that the fundamental they the basic argument that the vice president has advanced in his in his criticism of the press which I hasten to add he has every right to make

is that he has demanded in essence a Marxist press one that one that would go to a far greater degree and now it would support the interests of the state. That is the state is defined as government. The vice president's remarks I think have found a ready audience in this country for at least two reasons the first of which is that the press indeed does have faults it has many faults and grievous faults and therefore it is earned a good deal of hostility among the general public. So when high level criticism of that kind comes down. Then when it does find it it falls on welcoming years and the other main reason is that indeed the press is the bearer of bad tidings no one likes the bearer of bad tidings in the last 10 years there been a hell of a lot of bad tidings. So all of these things make the press the Mideast ready scapegoat. On that last point I said to some people earlier today and I think it's it's well

worth pondering in the unfortunate and sad episode that is now taking place in the Philippines where one more at least a country that at least approaches democracy is men subverted into a subverted into a dictatorship. One of our good reporters in a camp was out there last week he wrote a long piece in The Times on Monday and he asked several citizens of the Philippines what they thought and they were all overjoyed that a bad situation because they said crime the crime situation was so much better. And he said well why is that. How do you know the crime situation is so much but he said well they said well we don't hear anything about it in the war and the reason I don't hear anything about him or is because the newspapers aren't being published or at least they are being published freely. And this is the kind of thing I think that that does tend to make press unpopular we do bring the bad news. Nevertheless I think the criticism of the vice president has tended to result in it not so much in intimidation of the press as in inhibition of

the press. People editors publishers tend in my judgment however unconsciously Lino backwards not to make not to make themselves vulnerable to those charges of bias and partisanship that the vice president has made so current in this country and the tragedy of this is in my judgment there are many many things wrong with one of the worst things is that as I've already said the press is guilty of many sins and yet it seems to me the criticism the vice president is making criticism from that level which could have been in many ways so beneficial. He's making precisely the wrong criticism because it isn't. Press that morning to serve the interest of the state that we need in this country what we need first and foremost in the way of the press is a press that is not as dependent on and is subservient to the official sources as it is now because the major the major problem of the American press in my judgment is that we have always tended to we have always tended to derive our

news and do except to accept our information from the spokesman for official sources which in almost every case already if not if not misleading or at least self-serving. So I think the Agnew criticism has been precisely the wrong criticism. Now while you may well ask and indeed I've tried to ask myself why should the next administration be doing this why should they be conducting a campaign against the press am I right when I suggest that they are. I think the reason they're doing this is because they came into office with a very with a very sharp sense of the fact that we're going to have a hostile press and they probably they were quite correct in thinking that they were going to have a hostile press for at least two reasons because of the kind of policies that they were likely to advance if they knew they were going to advance. We're not likely to find much of a reception with the major organs of the press in America which do tend to be liberal. And secondly they were able to perceive without much difficulty that Mr. Nixon in never been very popular with

that press. So he didn't take you didn't take geniuses to figure out in advance that they were going to have a hostile press and they decided and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the decision they decide to counterattack. And they have counterattacked in my judgment a cat attacked with with so much success that they have that they have bad the dam is one of the great institutions of American life and you may say well you deserve it maybe perhaps we did and you may say what you haven't thought back very clearly and that may be so. The fact of the matter remains that I think that not only has the press been to some extent inhibited in the performance of what is its duty but also to a far greater extent and this is the true point of the thing. But the confidence in the in the press as an institution of integrity has been has been the if not destroyed certainly very badly damaged in the last four years and I think all of this shows a fundamental callousness on the part of this administration a fundamental misunderstanding of the road free press and First Amendment in American life. And I think that the

campaign against the press is not an isolated matter. I think this is this we have on our hands here not merely a campaign against the press but that campaign itself is a part of a much greater and more important conflict and more far reaching conflict. I think this is a historic and far reaching collision between those who believe that the first duty in the Ceci of the society is to establish and maintain order and between those on the other hand who believe that the first duty and the specialty of a society is to establish and maintain individual liberty. And I don't maintain for one moment that these two are mutually exclusive in fact I feel that they are obviously not mutually exclusive. Both must be preserved at some expense to the other. Clearly we can't have untrammeled individual liberty for anyone to do anything you want to do at any time in this country. Clearly on the other hand we do not need such a such a such an emphasis on Ora and individual liberty in itself easy is curtailed drastically. But that's the collision I think that is that is going far in our side and has been going far for some time it is not traceable

only to the Nixon administration manifestations of this conflict or many of the wiretapping theories of this administration which which I had to be had to be put to an end and had to have any input to them by the Supreme Court. The theory the Mitchell doctrine Soco that it was inherent in the powers of the executive branch to tap a book any individual or organization that you felt for whatever reason might be subversive to the national interest and that that individual organization could be tapped or booked without a warrant from any court. And without ever having the fact I haven't been reported that that had been done and is now being ended by the by the Supreme Court after two almost three years of practice. Nevertheless the mere fact that that doctrine could have been advanced in that sense is a manifestation I think of the conflict that I'm talking about illegal wiretapping itself is another matter. For every example that can be put forward of illegal wiretap it has resulted in a really strong advance of law and order in

this country of personal safety. And you can cite hours upon hours upon hours of wasteful wiretapping of small town gamblers and that sort of thing. It has had absolutely no effect upon that street crime your safety on the street with which most people are concerned in fact any anybody who comes forward and tell you that wiretapping is going to make the streets safer if you won't won't down at night. It's simply advancing a totally fallacious proposition that can't be maintained in in any way the prevalence of surveillance political surveillance in this country the development of data banks to record and transmit the fruits of the evil fruits of all the surveillance. When the when the Congress authorized an experimental data bank for the law enforcement. Administration in the Justice Department without public announcement that experimental data bank was turned over to the FBI. What you see is we still don't fully know the transmittal of data wholesale throughout the government. The transmittal of things like arrest records and so forth may where

well be that many of the dossiers are protected by and by how sophisticated systems within the government. But when those are when that data is transmitted out to to state data banks to local data banks it often is when there's no means of making sure that the same protection surrounds those documents that data out away from the original source. And yet throughout the government these data banks to be found there and they're proliferating without yet any any real consideration on the part of Congress or anybody else to have this new means is new to this new this new system ought to be ought to be all to be handled. I won't even because it's been so much in the headlines lately I won't even talk about the mounting evidence of the Watergate. War gate scandal and all those things that have grown out of it. We have seen in years past things that that should have tipped us off due to the kind of

mentality that could produce the the Watergate scandal. We have seen the kind of court appointments that have been made. We've seen repressive laws. Conspiracy laws. We've seen that dragnet arrests dragnet arrests in Washington D.C. by the thousands. None of which have resulted in any convictions. Some of which had to be vacated by the court. We see that the the federal prisons bureau in Barking on a 60 billion dollar building program at this point when all of the oil and all of their wisdom such as it may be in the field of Corrections is that it is the prison itself that is responsible for a good deal of the crime in America. I could go on a good deal is one particular another particular point I would like to make to you I think. And that is when you think of the increasing usage of conspiracy laws in this country the conspirators the art of the conspiracy trial has been brought almost to to a fine art the one thing and they were due to get any convictions. The three most

celebrated trials I suppose of the last four years have been the trials Chicago's seven father Berrigan and Angela Davis all conspiracy trials and all ending in basically an acquittal at least acquittal on the major charges. That's one thing that I need to be and I think needs to be pointed out another is the increasing use not just in this administration the increasing use of violence as a solution as a response to social unrest and the roll call here is one that should shame every American arms bird. Chicago our Guster can state the death of Fred Hampton people's part. Attica Jackson State. All of these examples where the use of violence in response to social to social unrest to social problems. And one wonders he didn't wonder that people then turn to the use of violence themselves against the state in the law when they see this when they see this example. I want to hasten to say that that I don't think that the conflict that I'm speaking of. The conflict that I'm speaking of can't be laid just to the evil machinations of the Nixon administration and I don't mean to

suggest we can not just on the one of ministration a one party. We know that the that the somewhat comic opera surveillance activities of the army but never the less threatening activities of the army began of the Johnson administration. We know that security checks the whole program of security checks began out of the Truman administration that far back. We know that the illegal wiretapping bill was advanced by Robert Kennedy and the Democrats in the 60s and we know that the conspiracy law the basic conspiracy of all was passed by a Democratic Congress. The Harris middle of the Columbia Broadcasting System for his great program the selling of the Pentagon took place by a Democratic controlled committee in a Democratic Congress so this is not this is not purely a partisan matter. In that sense it is not. It's not purely a product of the Nixon administration and I think therefore it's fair to ask why are we having this profound conflict that I mention at this time in our history. Why don't the leaders of this country want a free and inquiring

press and why is the government under either party in a way meant perhaps more one to one part of the other but why does the government want to spy on people. Why do they fear subversion so great and why do they practice so much violence why is our government back to so much violence. I think it's I give an answer that that may be glib but it's the one that I've come to over again with a good deal of thought. I think it's because of the many failures of American life and purposes at home and abroad. I think it's because of the bankruptcy the bankruptcy of a foreign policy based on the Cold War and positions of strength and anti communism abroad none of which deal with the real world and its problems and certainly none of the real problems that we have in this country. I think it's because of the inadequacy of liberal New Deal reform and middle road to party politics and federal bureaucracy to deal with racial animosity and fear. To deal with poverty in particular with the greatest greatest underlying political and social issue in America today which is that of the we kid maldistribution of wealth

and income in America and a wicked maldistribution it persist decade in and decade out despite the faith we placed in you know unlimited economic growth the inability of liberal reform and middle road party politics to deal with corporate power and exploitation to deal with union power and exploitation to deal with the tax and equities that we all know exist in our system to deal with decaying systems of education and transport and other services the failures and short of American government over the last over the last decade. The the many hopes that have been aroused many of the many purposes that have been set forward and yet the failures that have almost in it seems almost inevitably follies. It seems to me that we have in this great conflict in our society because the government in the leaders the people who have been running the government the people who have been who have been trying to lead the country because they're afraid fundamentally because they're afraid and because they don't trust the people. They're frayed because of the many failures of our government and they don't trust the people

to to to deal with that enough to deal with these problems straightforwardly. They cater to the worst in us instead of the best. And I was cite to you. I would cite to you that the present political atmosphere in this country on the question of bussing busing to achieve integration in schools is clearly under an instrument that has many flaws. I don't present it as a panacea but when the present United States himself rises up and presents and presents bussing as as as a great evil and and coax what is in effect a movement away from almost two decades of an attempt to provide racial equity in our schools when he attempts to cloak a movement away from that by citing busing as being some kind of an acceptable instrument when in fact we do bussing the students in this country by the millions for many years and it seems to me that is a classic example of appealing to the worst it's in people rather than the best it's in people. And I think that

that our leaders faced with their own failures have sought to intimidate the people and their representatives as it as as is exemplified in the campaign against the press that I've spoken out and as it is exemplified in the increasing use of violence as a as a means of coping with social unrest. Instead of instead of attacking problems in an effective way because in many because they have not been able to find effective ways to attack problems and attack those who might call them to account. Which is to say the press and they have tried to divert the people tried to divert the people from their own failures I think that's the cause of this great conflict that we are going through now and it remains only to say what will be the outcome of it. And I've come to that part of my notes which is blank. And I'm quite serious about that what would be the outcome. And I left that part blank because I don't know what the outcome will be. I think we are confronted in a

with a very serious. We had a very serious point in American life. We're going to have an election next week. I'm not as yet willing to say that the election of one man means disaster in the election of the other man means rescue from disaster. I don't think anything is quite that simple. I do think that if we are to have a landslide victory for the party that in my job and the man that in my judgment perpetrated so many of the things that I'm talking about tonight then it does. Does bespeak a certain numbness on the on the part of Americans but a good deal said through this campaign that everywhere I go I'm asked about has been a good deal said about the so-called apathy the American voter. Why aren't they aroused about the Watergate episode. Why do they tolerate this and that. The other thing. By my own judgement which is not necessarily fully formed and I can't necessarily support it with the kind of evidence one would like but my intuitive judgement at this point

is that that apathy apathy is less really a feeling of not caring. It isn't so much that people don't care about the Watergate as it is that people have come through a long process of distrust of the government they've come to feel that there's not much they can do about it that bad it doesn't really matter very much who's elected that this kind of thing will happen. That Senator McGovern my promise to end the war but he won't do that any more than anybody else has done a kind of a loss of faith in the whole political process which is to say of true loss of faith in the end in American democracy. And this would be of course you would need me to tell you this would be one of the most serious developments that we could have because if indeed the people have lost faith in democracy in that same in the sense that I mean why then ultimately they will either turn to something else or they will allow. Or allow the forces to impose something else.

I think that may be what is happening at this time. It's a disturbing process but I for one I'm not I'm not as yet really given in to despair of the matter while I think that's happening. I still have a considerable faith and it may be it may be. It may not be based on very much that I can cite. It may simply be it may simply be what I say of faith. But I still do have a good deal of faith and even confidence in that in the fundamental soundness of the American people a fundamental willingness of the American people to make sacrifices. I think that the worst thing that's happened to us in a way is is the failure of our leaders to call on us and in ways in which we can respond to call on us for the very best of success. I don't. At this moment see any prospect that bad. That will happen. I don't see that that leader on the horizon who is going

to speak to us in those terms to which we might might respond. And yet I feel quite certain that if and when that time comes and despite the the apathy and even the the frustrations and despairs of voters in the ranking the cynicism is you find everywhere about politics. I feel quite certain in my own mind I have a faith that when. Some leader speaks to us and when he brings us a program that we can respond to that we will respond to that. A program in air wind when we hear someone call for a form of generosity to the weak and justice to the disadvantaged. I believe that the Great American people will finally respond. They're the only question is whether or not we will hear such a car or before or before they will have lost the means to respond. Thank you all of them.

Of them. All entertain the first question and then how you direct them directly to Tom thereafter. This man right here. Well I certainly think that that's probably a. One of the polar points of our common modern experience. Some people trace the beginnings of loss of credibility Soco has got to be of a faddish We're back in government back to the U-2 incident but I think really the U-2 incident. Wow that's a good point for historians to make and was a little shocking coming from Eisenhower and so I would say that I would say that probably we could trace most of AF. We would really begin to think back over the traumatic modern times. To that to the

assassination of President Kennedy. Not that I don't leave the impression that I think that had had he lived then he himself would have been responsible for things being so much better than they were because in many ways I think he was on the threshold of having a whole lot of problems come tumbling down on him that later came tumbling down Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Nevertheless I think that the assassination of President Kennedy was one of those dreadful experiences that we all went through that began to began to have the kind of impact onus where we did begin to to doubt our own institutions doubt our own leaders begin to have a rather cynical view of our of our political process. So I think from that point from that point of view it was an exceptionally important and bleak event in American life followed later of course by the other the other well-known.

Political assassinations. Yes. This is not an operating room. You are I wish I did this right. Here. Yes sir you do that in the course you know that you are without fail because an awful lot of them and they live in all kinds of places it's very hard to know. We have a national staff of roughly 20 reporters I don't know precisely what and a lot of stringers which are people who work for us but not full time. And I suppose that better than most we're able to keep in touch in that way we have a lot of people like myself who travel a good deal. But I don't delude myself that that I'm very much in touch with with the Great American people in that sense. And I don't think that we can either the best we can do is that we do not do well the best we can do is to try to try to identify trends and developments that while they may not appear national

in any given point still are going to have some kind of national impact. Clearly that's quite hard to do. And I think you find a lot of mature in our paper now that you might conceivably hear in the West Coast reading say well you know why they waste two columns on that and this is a well taken question but the answer is most of the time at least that we are attempting to. To catch and convey the flavor and mood of the nation at any given time is very hard to do. Very hard indeed to do because this is a vast and incredibly complicated nation. I am just a bit of personal experience on that one have a point I want to sell back in 1900 to 2000 caught on a Saturday night. I covered a Texas Democratic primary. That was when John Connally was first elected governor of Texas and I covered that. And I just did live Ziff news please know that. I covered Texas Democratic primary on Saturday night in the rain in Dallas in the elections bureau

there and the next day I caught an airplane and flew to New York and spent the night in New York and the next day I'm in a car and drove up to Connecticut and starting Monday night in Hartford I began covering the Connecticut Republican convention. Now the difference in the Connecticut Republican convention and the Texas Democratic primary in just three days there two days really is the difference between between India and and France where almost literally in political processes political custom styles personalities everything you have and you only have to do that once or twice that kind of thing to understand the the absolutely incredible diversity and complexity of this country and for any newspaper to try to catch it is hopeless in the beginning. You know. Your. Mind. Well I've been trying to explain that to myself a good deal. I wrote a piece back that last week. I

think that one of the reasons for that is that it or decisions of that magnitude. Who are you going to support for president. Generally speaking are made by publishers and publishers generally speaking a business men and business men generally speaking are supporting President Nixon. And so I think that's the major reason for that and I think that's very shortsighted on the part of publishers. I was saying to the. To the newspaper group who's here tonight we were talking before dinner. I think that although a publisher may find it difficult to make the short run connection between incursions on the First Amendment and his profits. And it is difficult to make that connection offhand because his profits don't really depend on his printing the truth fearlessly in that sense. Nevertheless the same mentality the same mentality that will begin to make inroads in the First Amendment steadily ultimately have pushed far enough will simply shut him down. And we've seen that happen before so that

that I think that publishers have a good deal more vested long term interest in supporting First Amendment rights than many of them might happen to think and I believe that the fact that more than 600 newspapers I got to figure out of my colleague rest in the column more than 600 newspapers are supporting Nixon. He is he is one of the most incredibly I'm going to last for reasons I'm not often if so it's really a self-destructive thing seems to me self destructive and and incredibly short sighted. Yes. Oh you're right you are right. Right. Well the Chicago Tribune didn't quite do that she thought the World War 2 episode they would give you a considered argument that they didn't think it was after the Battle of Midway it was a story that may or may not have disclosed the fact that we've broken the Japanese code.

What you're referring to is what I call the troopship exemption in the illegal legal terminology I think. And. The question in fact it was just a steward. Put in there in the Pentagon papers here in WOULD YOU ARE you entitle to print news of a troop ship that sailing to morrow so that the troop ship will then be torpedoed and all those men are killed in some way. Well. I think the response that I would given that I believe most of us First Amendment zealots would give is if no you're not entirely to do that not in human terms but that under the Constitution you are legally entitled to do that in that and that the the remedy and protection involved here is the good is the good sense and patriotism of editors and publishers and the fact fact the matter is to my knowledge during World War 2 for example there was no such instance that with the possible single exception of the Chicago Tribune case which the Tribune itself maintained stoutly is not true and I'm. Not able to judge the facts in that

case. If there had been no such episode as that to justify that troopship exception. Now I would turn the question around and say this suppose that I find out that as I have next Sunday in this present government is planning to drop an H-bomb on Hanoi now to print that information surely is the violation of the classified information at the highest level you see. But I would take it as being my human duty and everything else to try to stop that from happening. I make that judgement no matter what the President makes you say I would. If that's the case. Well I'm saying that the same the same law that would give the government machinery to stop you from publishing that troopship piece would give the machine or stop you from publishing that H-bomb piece and I think this may reflect the bias of a newspaper man. But I for one will but I'd rather put my faith in the in the patriotism and good sense of editors not to publish the troopship bit than I would in the willingness of the government

to play fair if it only on things like the age bomb episode because even in my brief experience to expect the government to play fair matters of this kind you are. You were leaning on a very weak reed. Yes. Limits on campaign spending. Gee I really don't know that's that's a terribly complicated question I think that we don't probably spend enough on politics in this country. You know in one thousand in one thousand sixty eight. All politics for all politics now is that we spent a little bit more we're not much more some million more than Procter and Gamble spends every year in advertising so it isn't a question that we that we spend too much politics. When you consider how much ignorant voting goes on. I think the question is Where do you get the money and what is it spent for and what is the return on the

investment and so forth. I think I would favor and this is a good Republican position goes back to Theodore Roosevelt I would favor a federal financing of elections. But I hasten to add that when you when you open that can the number of worms inside out is incredible. I've been this is one of the studies that I've been interested you know over the years and the late Senator Gore is not the late Gobi the late senator. You got into this very heavily at one time and was quite enthusiastic about it and he found so many problems just just for example you know how far down does the federal government finance you to finance down the senator level you finance governors What do you finance here and do you finance but primaries and how do you decide about minor parties and how you decide about independents and so forth. I'm not saying all that can't be worked out is a very complex matter to be worked out in a while I think federal financing only is probably the best answer. You then raise First Amendment problems for example. They're going to if you don't have federal

financing of all the president of all the presidential candidates and I've got a lot of money and I feel very strongly that one of those guys ought to be elected rather than a guy and I'm not to be permitted to spend money on his behalf. And if so how do you control that spending. I don't obviously we can't sell these questions tonight I'm just saying that a mixed number of questions that arise when you begin to talk about federal financing here. Yes 0 0. 0. 0. Oh. Yeah we're. We're right. Coming out of. That. Oh. No. Problem. Oh yes to some extent but I believe that the American system has always been acutely responsive. But the Q depended upon the

politics of personality. I don't mean to put forward years of the Great Man theory of history but when you are when you are in the position that we are in when you have the kind of politics that we do I do think you become to a great extent dependent upon upon a sort of a great man system and that leaders do emerge. Now you are confronted with a situation if that's the case you say well maybe that's not so good a system maybe we ought to have a different system and swear wouldn't be so dependent upon personalities. I buy that in the abstract if you know if you want to put that case forward looking at it practically. And even though it may seem rather farfetched. I think there's a better chance that some leader will arise who can make the American system work and work beneficial if a most obvious at least for a brief time as say Franklin Roosevelt did. I think there's a better chance of doing that then that we can equitably and peaceably and effectively for the long pool develop a new system. That's that's the can the inconsistency is there you're quite right to spot it.

But that's the that's the answer that I have. Yes well you know where you. Are Waiting For go to him man. Man leave you here I wonder. He's just not doing that in the current election right. You mean the current election. Yeah well I think at least two things have happened there that are quite outside these broad currents that we're talking about. The first of which was the shooting of George Wallace which took him out of the race and that while you might say it's a product of social unrest it's also the product of a parent of deranged minds happenstance and that guaranteed that Dad Wallace would want a third party campaign against that took about apparently as best we can figure about six out of every 10 potential lot of voters went to

Nixon. So that's a factor here. Another factor is that he was an affair which whatever it may say about Senator McGovern's processes for choosing people and so will never last again is a rather happenstance matter and doesn't grow out of great social courage. Those two things alone I think are almost enough to defeat a challenger to a rather rather clever incumbent president. On the other hand I would have to say that I do think. But what it may be worth that the McGovern campaign from about the end of the California primary own McGovern campaign I think has been very very poorly run. And without those other two sort of happenstance matters and with a campaign wanted out at a peak level of efficiency I'm not I'm not so at all sure that other people would be responding to Senator McGovern a good deal better in short I think my answer to that is that he's campaigned both by actually tip and through his performance has not been

really adept at a winning level and I'm I stand to be proven wrong about that on Tuesday perhaps. Conceived. Yes or. No. On. Plan. I. Know this. Week's. Time. When you see even one. Thing in mind. He said. They have. Seen. Me that. Most of the things that. You said they are very. Good to us. On the line we. Just didn't leave town. Because I. Really miss. You. Well you have phone lines in D.C. and say you. Have. The same car free in my. Car. And. Beat. Us.

With. Well it's beginning to look to me more and more as if you may be riding the dead here's here's one more case where we've been mistreated I'm not to necessarily agreeing that you're right that it's that they always tell the truth about it or that Arafat always tells lies although I think that gets closer to the truth you know to think about. But it does begin to appear that this is one more case where where we have been somewhat misled I am less convinced than than probably you are that we were misled on the question of dates than I am that did it seem more important seems to me is that Dr. Kissinger stated very plainly in his long news conference last Friday that there were no secret protocol training events or that everything contained the agreement was everything. And now it develops just this week that that's not so at all that there was a secret understanding as to the withdrawal of certain yet many North Vietnamese troops for which we are now seeking even greater assurances that tends to undermine my confidence no thing

as to why are the press in general and you were kind enough not to say me but it's true because I wrote a piece to that effect which you probably didn't read and I'm glad of that. While we accepted at face value I suppose a good deal of it was that that in that case we particularly wanted to accept it at face value is a little bit different from say some of the other things we've accepted in the past or I've come or I have disputed in the past it wasn't an invasion. It wasn't mine to harvest and it was peace and or was purported to be so and I thought that what Dr. Kissinger said was possible that one or two unexpected poems that are written in could be could be ironed out in another medium. I don't say that's true I said I thought was plausible. And and so I think those are probably the reasons for that. Has it much thing absent the depressed you know still most American newspaper still is not quite as convinced of the iniquity of the American government as there is some of those who've been more actively

involved in the anti-war effort.