Footage of Edward R. Murrow Symposium Discussion with Fred Friendly

Some serious thought given to it and these decisions ought to be based at least in part on the public welfare involved. This isn't a circus or it isn't a great big game. Buildings are in a later post Mr Chairman and you have built this great company in such a way as to insulate the news division. You have Mr. Solana in there running it got Mr. Shunick producing the nightly news. You have all these fine editors and reporters doing their job. You have built this company so that. People like you wouldn't be in the business of having to say yes or no and that isn't that what you consider your mandate to be Mr. Kelly and what we know now is that a situation like this could very rapidly result in nuclear war. Also in the rescue of the mountain while we talk about electing presidents every four years by then we're risking never having an election again because we won't be around in four years I think it is imperative in a democratic society that the citizens know that they're at risk

and guide their leaders because that's what it was about Chrissie's but they're not voices. We're supposed to leave them stuck in there by we I mean citizens not as we want to see General of the world. As the attorney general of the United States and a citizen who voted for the president. How do you how do you know what you think of that statement. Well Mr. Scilab has escalated this actually much more than you described it. Hypothetical we were working with so I would I would agree that with all of the illegal propositions advanced by Miss Mr. Morris and simply indicate that each of these Constitutional guarantees must inevitably be balanced and that's what judges are for. And this is a limited situation in which the lives of hostages and the rescuers are at stake and that's why we want the injunction.

Mr. friend tell me why. Why the New York Times which with other news organizations knew about the Bay of Pigs. Tell me why you think Mr. Reston and Mr. Dreyfus than the publisher of The Times toned down had chills the story so that it really didn't say very much about an imminent invasion. Well I have no idea why they did. I don't know what was going on there. If the proposition had been put to me I think that my decision in that case would have been to go with everything that Tad Schultz had included and the CIA involvement. Partly because most of that had been published before and elsewhere anyway. I think the one thing that I would have gone along with what The Times did would have been to modify the question of the imminence.

Why would you have done that. Because they might not pull it off every day and then you'd be embarrassed to be one of them I look I look stupid I think that I would say you don't want to look stupid. I think I don't mind wrecking the mission. I wouldn't mind recognition now that you know it was a failure. You know now that I thought about it way and now that you know it ran out you're changing the ground I do it all about. You. You have to go back to your original Iraq Marbury Iran Iran Iran I would not run the US. Now back to the original Hayley I got the judge's order back to the original I will get the judge's order but you see I've got to go way back on this hypothetical situation that you set up. I knew that all this was going to happen. I mean I could I could I could reason that all this was going to happen and against the pressures of time that you put me on as the news director or as the responsible reporter somewhere along the

line I would have known that you were going to go to court get a restraining order I would certainly open that restraining order I'm subject to the law the same as anybody else's and I would have in anticipation of that kind of thing happening I would have said I would have gone to the bargaining table then or blackmail whatever you want to call it and I would have a member of that school. I would yes I would be in this case in my day you would have been ok I will hold the story until you pull this thing off provided you will let me go along on the mission and I'll be the only one to go. You are playing let's. Beat the Clock and let's make a deal all at once. See. This is supposing also all this is happening. Lead defense department comes to says look. We make a deal with you. You got out to Andrews Air Force Base. We'll get you on this mission. It's going to refuel in Frankfurt. You can go on the

mission. You can write anything you want when it's over. You can have an exclusive mission to moderate. You're going to have a camera man with you sound person had the whole story. Just don't read it. Well I'm going to. Well I think I'll sit down while you play. That would be a very tempting offer. But. But as well. But if I thought that. A restraining order or something else would not keep me from running the story in the meantime I would think we had a go story. Why. Because I think we have a responsibility to do that.

What does that mean responsibility. It's our job to report news. I heard something from Mr. Solana or somebody here to save the world to be a citizen to be a human being. What about the human being that's going to cause that mission to be a disaster. To have everything go wrong because the people on the ground there will know it's coming. I don't think that you can in many cases and not in this case serve the public interest that the chairman wants to serve by keeping the public in the dark except in Entebbe except. In Entebbe because that succeeded. Well I did I said that I probably would not have reported the one in Iran that failed in advance either. But I agree that this is a different kind of operation and a different kind of mission it isn't just a rescue mission.

So what are you going to do when he comes in and says I got a terrific deal. Fern's deal. I can go on the mission. If we told a story this is the not great situation and the four Gulf states for whatever they are. And he's going to go. He says your report is going to go exclusive if you hold the story. Now. No. Now. Can sound pretty good to you Mr. Chairman. Like it or about the judge's decision I don't think now let's get back to the judge and the right as 12 hours can't run. I got to read these documents and it takes me 12 hours to read them I'll let you know. First thing tomorrow morning. All right now let's look at the time schedule also and determine what's going to be happening at the end of that 12 hour period of time because maybe everything is going so far by the end of that time I don't know really what have we. We may very well be all right so that in that case it seems to me we revert again to covering the news and I'd say to you is that Bob fog is making this trip. JERRY

Oh Barry is going to do it. I said a very that's another side of the story you go we're going to go along with the judge's decision whatever the judges are so we can appeal it. Because a lot of money but you can appeal it. We can appeal it but I don't think there's going to be time to appeal this thing because this 48 hours which you postulate like a very beginning actually let's say there is time you want to appeal it must. Want to let it out so you make the point. I do still tell you I would have asked time lawyer. Bascom. Would you please go to the judge and if he wants us to hold up for 12 hours in 48 hours where he thinks. In order to avoid the risk of its happening before he's finished thinking we please ask the government to hold up for the same amount of time. That's the attorney general Mr. Attorney General would you be willing to the president to hold off on this military adventure for at least 72 hours.

Here you've got the journalist as a policymaker the answer is No you're going to appeal it not science. Court of Appeals. Oh absolutely. The Court of Appeals. They have and I'm back here again your honor they like you it public not you know but they meet and they say we have to go along with the judge with judgment that goes to federal district court issued this order according to the rules in the dictum of near vs. Minnesota. And this does irreparable damage. Going to go to the Supreme Court. The one judge on the court who worries about this district there comes a point where if this strike is so imminent and the possible reasonably possible consequences of leading smack into a nuclear exchange that wow I am a great believer in law and order and obeying the law. That's a point for civil disobedience. I would go ahead and report it so the public could know

what the risks are you think that I just share. What you think of it for what you think of it just showing up. What do you think of it just now when you think of it missed a lot on behind. Do you think of it for you know I guess I'd have to go Mr. Chairman. Board of this great conglomerate What do you think of that. I'm still not convinced. Mr. Solana minister for. Us to soften his stance and you've got a lot of them by the way we want to ask your question. When I got in a few of us was told by the courts of the United States to integrate the school in Little Rock. Do you think they should have bailed out of water Mr. Governor Faubus should have better integrate the school. Let. The black children go to Little Rock I school. I've just made clear that I do believe in the BS except to the extreme circus that was for the people of the Hawk and in extreme circumstance do you think that Governor I do

not because you know that if I want to say yes I do yes yes or yes but no but to take the consequences. Just for once a good answer. Should of they deal with it. When Governor Wallace stood at the school door in Tuscaloosa and refused to obey an order of the cooks from your court you think Governor Wallace should have obeyed that order. Yes I think you have to obey the orders or the system breaks down. Do you think that Faubus and Wallace should have a bay those orders do you think that of course you do. I'd like to say that I think that. It's entirely reasonable to issue this injunction and to allow the strike to proceed. But then to have the media go ahead and publish everything they know about what what started up and what that lie and lies and will then try to challenge the policy making the proposition say what they say All right well why not to handle that why why not simply because there are lives at stake and

maybe there are lots of other things that require this rescue mission happen at a particular time. So if you accept that as a human why not allow that to proceed and then go ahead and land on the story as to what the plan is about and thereby challenge this policy may have melted by then and that's why we keep escalating into that level I'm suggesting that means I put notes or you know just melt. He never said that all said we were going to have this rescue out there right here I know you did that he talked about all those but I never said anything was going to melt I didn't say hydrogen bomb. You didn't have to say this we know that is precisely the sort of thing that you did Bob. But you don't know they're going to use a hydrogen bomb and I know you do it so you have integrity only go with what we know. No one dealing with a situation like this is what the reasonable consequences may be and you think that reasonable

consequences are nuclear war. As I understand it. Indeed I do but as I understood my strike in Barry's proposal it was the first let the first stage of the plan go ahead. Then after the after safely rest after them and held them up a war has begun. Then talk not knowing all the war has not begun yet but in this scenario causing this to happen is going to cause that to happen but the way you laid it out first right you rescued them they would stay and take over the country right. I'm saying I think what Mr. Reich and Barry was saying is OK let us do the first thing first then if you want to release it. You're going to know you're going to promise a blackmail business with the commander in chief to win the best interest of the country as you say. If you ran the story. And they didn't run the mission by the way mission didn't happen there you were there was there was for the nightly news. That was South and on the nightly news saying the federal Broadcasting Company has learned from unimpeachable sources that this mission is going to take place etc. etc.

etc. and the president of the United States says kill the mission. And now it's the next morning. And there you are with egg all over his face or his face all over your. How you going to explain that. He's of my own or anybody else's face. We were exactly right. It had the kind of consequence that. Was a possibility. The president having come down has decided maybe he'd better not because the public won't stand for it. Spose not as they know it was I don't know why you and I and we never were going to do it. And this broadcasting company you just heard you just told my chairman that they were going to do it. Did my chairman lie to me that they went to court to stop they would stop. OK good answer. You asked about the distinctions between our rights and the rights and

obligations privileges Whatever burdens of presidents of the United States I believe firmly that the First Amendment is not absolute. I believe firmly that we do not have rights period to those of other officials of government particularly but of other private citizens that the right of the First Amendment are those exercised by the entire public but anybody who wants to sit down at the typewriter and bat out a little piece of paper saying the government is about to. I believe I have reason to believe that the government is about to invade Madre has a right under the First Amendment to stand on the street corner and wave it in and circularize it. I went in saying I would go with that story I was not acting under any supposed. Priviledge or right that I have as a journalist I was exercising a an obligation that I felt I had as a human being who sees the risk of great possible danger to this society and to the world and who happen to have access to a means of broadcasting at

my command I was on that basis not on anything period of age of the journalists that I chose to go on the air with that story. Not only that there was an ad I choose that knowing that I am about to go to jail as a consequence not only go to jail and I respect you for that you said it most eloquently but also conceivably jeopardize the five licenses which at renewal time someone will say was not and more importantly who is my God I want to ask you this what more important a danger the hostage. That's more important. Let me ask you this. You said I did it as any citizen under that First Amendment. No one knows that men those 10 amendments were added two years after the Constitution as you know because Jefferson and Madison and George Mason demanded that there'd be a written bill of rights just for this and they were really thinking about somebody standing outside Williamsburg or Boston or Philadelphia making a speech or the likes of John Peters angry with him 50 years before with a penny printing press.

You're not quite that person. They're not worried. The president the attorney general is not worried about you going out on the street and saying hey everybody stop the mission you're just going to be a guy yelling. You got those cameras you got those microphones you got the only except for your two competitors you've got the only microphone in town. You really are. Through two hundred ten affiliated stations. You walk pervasive. You are everywhere and you are licensed in the public interest convenience in the sense that whatever that says whatever that means. Do you really think that when you stand up and say I'm just exercising my First Amendment right. That you are any different because you have all that awesome power. Then John Shine like. Whistling in the wind in front of the library at Columbia or Faneuil Hall in Boston or the waterfront in Seattle before you answer that Judge do you think there's a difference. Yes.

Explain Mr. Shunick what it is. Well I think the difference is obvious. First of all the impact it seems to me that when the press. And I think the case law supports this the press has such an overall world impact on something where the person on the street as you say is nothing but someone screaming down Second Avenue. But the practicalities are whatever rights anyone asserts if under our law. I think we all have to respect if the law says that these these publications can be enjoyed because of the circumstances which have been established. It seems to me that if the decision is made appealed infirmed and so forth. But if it's not followed then of course the whole system governed by laws is in jeopardy. But I will answer that while I agree with that but in this particular instance there

was a decision made not to exhaust judicial remedy and that would have to buy my client is a mistake which I take to go with it. That's a mistake as long as there is time to exhaust you to show remedies prior to the final date why one would have to exhaust judicial remedies in that particular instance you have to go to a Supreme Court justice when all through it we did all that and the Supreme Court upheld the judge and explain what's wrong. But they made the decision and you have to advise the client. Now we have the journalists who want to go with it and they've been the most articulate and lucid. It was like we've had the judge in the attorney general saying why they should be enjoined. We've had Mr. Mickelson at the very top very wary of what Mr. Solana saying that the future of civilization is at risk. You are an officer of the court right. What do you tell Mr. Solana. Mr. Nicholson. Well you know the one step that we didn't take it there is there is another dimension to this case that hasn't come out and that is that while it is the case

that there is a military necessity exception to the doctrine of prior restraint to an injunction an issue and while it is true that the president has power to repel an invasion of our shores and in this particular instance perhaps to rescue the hostages it is not true that the president unilaterally has the power to engage in war making and to make war that's a decision for Congress to make. And in this particular instance. Not because of the information that was gathered by Serafin and others but because of the information supplied by the United States government in support of the affidavit for an injunction. It corroborated the plan to take over another country a presidential directive and I would believe that United States would dissolve that injunction which they did for the simple reason that otherwise you're lying presidential warmaking. And you're saying that in near vs. Minnesota it said troopships elipse in time of war and time of war that were granted and has taken the war into his own hands exactly what counts. Don't we live in a thermonuclear age the kind that bothers Mr. Solana. He

didn't last long right where World War acts when it comes will come not with the Baron Gary and the Lusitania and the other trash going across the ocean or even the queen going to the Falkland Islands for weeks. It's going to come in seconds and the president understands that and the president says to you we don't. Have Time. Not in this case only but in the real kind of war to declare war. Congress will never have time to declare war. It will all be Button Button button which reflects well over. How can you ask the commander in chief to honor a thing. Troop ships sailing in time of war when the very sound of the word is arcane. This case you must obtain oil. Wants to rescue the hostages and rescue the hostages and obtain oil obtain oil for continued supply the American people are rioting in the streets. And this particular case I think is more important to uphold the Constitution that says that only Congress can declare war and that type of situation we're not

declaring a nuclear war would be declaring a regular ordinary military type action. He's afraid it's going to become much bigger. It could escalate. It may or may not escalate so what's your advice. Well as an officer of the court after advised him to obey the injunction as a person who has a deeper and sustained interest in the continued welfare of our country and advised not publish that. How do you rank your priorities. Are you a human being I haven't been for it before you are a lawyer. Yes. Go with the story. Yes. Some land. The lawyers on your side and then back to you. No not as a lawyer I'm not on his side as a lawyer here as you know that's all a chip a him to be a human being. Oh come on. That obviously tonight we're going to play I want to tell you what to do as a human being absolutely and as a lawyer both and how do you weigh those oh if I were the human being ahead of the legalities are you going to go with this lawyer after all. I want one more thing established and that is everyone has been making the

assumption that there is an inevitable nuclear war on the tail end of this operation and I have no evidence yet that there is that this is a very high risk of engagement. If it is not a high risk again. In other words if it's possible to pull this thing off and the chance of nuclear war is very limited. Then I think we probably should go ahead and encourage it to happen. If we are really facing absolute destruction and the evidence is so clear that it's almost inevitable that somebody's going to attack us and nuclear war then I'd say that we can disregard the whole business of legality and go ahead than the next civilization. If this whole exercise I had two voices whispering in my ear right now I have. The admonition of morrow saying finally you've got to learn to get off the air on time. I have my wife who says that to me every day about everything I do. The

speech is long enough. The telephone call has lasted long enough and she is saying right now without my even looking at her it's five minutes after 12. If this exercise has any value. And if it is it's because of what they have brought to it. I hope that you will go on thinking about this kind of dilemma. As I know they do because we live in a time when events happen with great acceleration and what a journalist. And those who work with them and even against them in our adversary system government and the media have to be prepared to think about is what they will do when the roof falls in. I want to thank all my colleagues for putting up with my bad amount of obscene. You have just seen the edited version of last year's hypothetical from the Edward R. Murrow symposium.

We invite you to attend this year's Edward R. Murrow lectureship will be held at the Beazley performing arts Coliseum tomorrow night at 8 o'clock. Sander Vanocur the chief diplomatic correspondent for ABC and Richard Thompson from the U.S. State Department will be giving the addresses. We thank you for joining us for this special presentation tonight. On behalf of KW are few television. I'm Glen Johnson. Good night.