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; it isn't a great big game. Buildings are -- It is a circus Mr. Chairman and you have built this great company in such a way as to insulate the news division. You have Mr. Salant in there running, you have Mr. Sharnak 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. Salant? What we know now is that a situation like this could very rapidly result in nuclear war. Also in the rescue of the ... And 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 a democracy is about. They're

not our bosses. We're supposed to lead them. Mr. Eikenberry... By "we" I mean citizens, not reporters. As the attorney general of the United States and as a citizen who voted for the president, how do, how do you, what you think of that statement? Well Mr. Salant has escalated this factually much more than you described it, hypothetical we were working with, so I would I would agree with all of the legal propositions advanced by Mr., by 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. Fred 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, then the publisher of The Times, toned down Tad Schultz's' story so that it really didn't say very much about an imminent invasion? Well, I have, I have no idea why they did. I don't know what was going on in their heads. 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, including the CIA involvement, partly because most of that had been published beforehand 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 of the invasion. Why would you have done that? Because they might not pull it off ever. And then you'd be embarrassed to be wrong. Yeah, then I look, I look stupid I think that I would say... You don't want to look stupid.

but you don't mind wrecking the mission. I wouldn't mind wrecking that mission. Now that you know it was a failure. Yeah, now that I know... How about Iran? Now that you know it was... Iran, now your You're, you're, you're changing the ground. I do it all the time. (laughter) ... To go back to your original, Iraq, Marbury. Iran. Iran. Iran, I would not run with. ... Now back to the original. Here we are, I got the judge's order. Back to the original. 12-hour hold. I got 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 under 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 obey that restraining order, I'm subject to the law the same as anybody else is,

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. You are a member of that school? I would, yes I would be in this case and my deal 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. All at the same time. (Laughter) Mr. Serafin, supposing all this is happening. The defense department comes to you, says look, we'll make a deal with you. You get 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 Madre. You're going to have a camera man with you, sound person, have the whole story, exclusive. Just don't run it. Well, (laughter) I think I'll sit down while you ponder it. (laughter) That would be a very tempting offer. But, but, 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 ought to go with the story. Why? Because I think we would have a responsibility to do that. What does that mean, responsibility? It's our job to report

news. I heard something from Mr. Salant 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, I, 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, it's a different kind of mission, it isn't just a rescue mission. Salant, 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 hold the story? This is the Madre situation, and the four Gulf states. Or whatever they are. And he's going to go. Your reporter's going to go, exclusive, if you hold the story. Nah. No? Nah. Doesn't sound pretty good to you, Mr. Chairman? I've got to know a little more about the judge's decision. I don't think. Now let's get back to the judge, the judge says 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 has gone so far by the end of that time... Point of no return. We may very well be beyond. Right. So that, in that case, it seems to me we revert again to covering the news, and I'd say to, who is it, Bob Fog who's making this trip? Barry. Oh, Barry is going to do it.

I'd say to Barry, that's another side of the story, you go. We're going to go along with the judge's decision? We go with the judge's decision. You gonna appeal it? It costs 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 at the very beginning... Let's say there is time. You want to appeal it, Mr. Salant? Want to run it out so you make the point? There's still time, I would have asked our lawyer. Ask him. Would you please go to the judge and if he wants us to hold up for 12 hours or 48 hours while he thinks, in order to avoid the risk of its happening before he's finished thinking, will you 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 ask the president to hold off on this military adventure for at least 72 hours? No. Here you've got the journalist as a policymaker. The answer is No. You going to appeal, Mr. Salant?

Court of Appeals. Oh, absolutely. The Court of Appeals. They have an en banc hearing in your honor. They like you. In public. No, No. But they meet, and they say we have to go along with the judge, with judgment that goes, 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 while I am a great believer in law and order and obeying the law, that's a point for civil disobedience, and I would go ahead and report it so the public could know what the risks are. What do you think of that, Mr. Chair? I'm for it.

What you think of it, Mr. Pullem? What do you think of it, Mr. Sharnik? What do you think of it, Mr. Mell? What do you think of it, Mr. Ludlum? I'm behind you. What do you think of it, Fred? Yeah, I guess I'd have to go along. Mr. Chairman of the board of this great conglomerate, what do you think of that? I'm still not convinced. You don't do it. Mr. Salant, Mr. Four, Mr. Serafin, Ms. Jansen, do you go along with them by the way? I want to ask you all a question. When Governor Faubus was told by the courts of the United States to integrate the school in Little Rock, do you think they should obey that order? Mr. Governor Faubus should obey that order? Integrate the school. Let the black children go to Little Rock high school? I've just made it clear that I do believe in obedience to the law, except in extreme circumstances. That was for the people of Arkansas an extreme circumstance. Do you think that Governor... I'm not going to be guided by people... Yes, I do, yes. Mr. Serafin?

The answer's yes, but... No buts. You take the consequences. Mr. Four? That's a good answer. Should've obeyed the order. When Governor Wallace stood at the school door in Tuscaloosa and refused to obey an order of the courts, from your courts, 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 obeyed those orders? Do you think that, of course you do. I'd like to say that I think that he's, 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 it up and what the plan was, and we'll then try to challenge the policy. Make them a proposition, see what they say. All right, well, why not handle that way, why not, simply because there are lives at stake and maybe there are lots of other things that require that this rescue mission happen at a particular time?

So if you'll 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...Because the policy may have melted by then and that's why. Well, you keep escalating it to that level, and I'm suggesting that means... just hypothetical...melt. He never said that at all. I said we were going to have this rescue operation. No no, you didn't then 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 it, because we know that is precisely the sort of thing that leads to the hydrogen bomb. But you don't know they're going to use a hydrogen bomb, and I've been hearing for three days ...serious risks... ethics and integrity, only go with what we know. What we know is in 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 Mr. Eikenberry's proposal, it was the first, let the first stage of the plan go ahead. Then after they're safely rescued, then tell the public. After the the nuclear war has begun. Then, no, no, the war has not begun yet. But in Mr. Salant's scenario, causing this to happen is going to cause that to happen. But the way you laid it out first, right, you rescued then they would stay and take over the country. Right. I'm saying, I think what Mr. Eikenberry was saying, is OK let us do the first thing first, then if you want to release it. You're going, so you're going to be in the semi-blackmail business with the commander-in-chief too, in the best interest of the country, as you see it. 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 Four on the nightly news, there was Serafin 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 yours. How you going to explain that? Egg isn't on his or my or anybody else's face. We were exactly right. It had the kind of consequence, that was a possibility. The president, in having come down, has decided maybe he'd better not because the public won't stand for it. Suppose... now that they know. The president says, it was a contingency plan. I don't know why... We never were going to do it. And this broadcasting company, this newspaper. You just, you told my chairman that they were going to do it. Did my chairman lie to me? Ask him. That they went to court to stop, they went to court to 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 superior to those of other officials of government particularly, but of other private citizens, that the rights of the First Amendment are those exercised by the entire public, that 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 and circularize it. I went in saying I would go with that story. I was not acting under any supposed privilege 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 happened to have access to a means of broadcasting at my command and it was on that basis, not on any superior privilege as a

journalist that I chose to go on the air with that story. Only that, and 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 even more importantly, lose my job. I want to ask you this, what... More important, you endanger the hostages. That's more important than the licenses. Let me ask you this. You said, I did it as any citizen under that First Amendment. Now when those, those 10 amendments were added two years after the Constitution, as you know, because Jefferson and Madison and George Mason demanded that there 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 Peter Sanger within 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 roar through 210 affiliated stations. You are pervasive. You are everywhere, and you are licensed in the public interest, convenience, necessity, 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 than John Sharnik whistling in the wind in front of the Lowe 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 to Mr. Sharnik 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 on Second Avenue. But the practicalities are whatever rights anyone asserts, if under our law, which I think we all have to respect, if the law says that these, these publications can be enjoined because of the circumstances which have been established, it seems to me that if the decision is made, appealed, confirmed, and so forth. But if it's not followed, then of course our whole, our whole system of government by laws is in jeopardy. Anybody want to answer that? Well, I agree with that, but in this particular instance there was a decision made not to exhaust judicial remedy and that I would

have to advise my client is a mistake. A mistake to go with it. It's a mistake. As long as there is time to exhaust judicial remedies prior to the final date, why, one would have to exhaust judicial remedies. In that particular instance, you'd have to go to a Supreme Court justice. Went all through it, we did all that, and the Supreme Court upheld the judge. I think the Supreme Court'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 most articulate and lucid in why. We've had the judge and the attorney general saying why they should be enjoined. We've had Mr. Mickelson at the very top, very wary, we've got Mr. Salant saying that the future of civilization is at risk. You are an officer of the court. Right. What do you tell Mr. Salant and Mr. Mickelson? Well, you know there's one step that we didn't take...What's that? 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 its affidavit for an injunction, it corroborated the plan to take over another country, a presidential directive, and I would believe that the Supreme Court of the United States would dissolve that injunction... But they didn't... For the simple reason that otherwise you're allowing presidential war-making. And you're saying that in Near vs. Minnesota, it said troop ships elipse in time of war... In time of war... And the president has taken the war into his own hands. Exactly. But, Counselor, don't we live in a thermonuclear age, the kind that bothers Mr. Salant, keeps him up all night? Yes, very much. Where World War X, when it

comes, will come not with the Berengaria and the Lusitania and the other ships going across the ocean, or even the queen, QEII, 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 push reflex all 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? Well, in this case he wants to obtain oil. Wants to rescue the hostages. Rescue the hostages and obtain oil, obtain oil for continued supply for the American people who 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 in that type of situation. We're not declaring a nuclear war, we 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, I'd have to advise him to obey the injunction. As a person who has a deeper and sustained interest in the continued welfare of our country, I'd advise him to publish. And how do you rank your priorities? Are you a human being? I'm a human being first. Before you are a lawyer. Yes. Go with the story. Yes. Salant, the lawyer's on your side, and then back to you. No, not as a lawyer, I'm not on his side as a lawyer. You're a human, how much you pay him to be a human being? Too much. Oh, come on. Obviously too much. Do you want him to tell you what to do as a human being? Yes, absolutely I do. And as a lawyer? Both. And how do you weigh those? Well, I weigh the human being ahead of the legalities. Are you going to go with this one 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 engagement, 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 then and protect civilization. If this exercise... I have two voices whispering in my ear right now. I have the admonition of Murrow saying, Friendly, 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 manners. Thank you. 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. It will be held at the Beasley 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 KWSU television, I'm Glen Johnson. Good night.