“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days
and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly
heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
.
.
You may remember that in 1851 the
New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace
Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
.
.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke,
and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to
Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his
munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels
ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
.
.
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually
terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents
full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
.
.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different.
And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time
they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the
expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
.
.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.”
Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The
President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight….
.
.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the
gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our
security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every
sphere of human activity.
.
.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society
two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the
President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone,
but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society;
and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long
ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of
pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify
it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed
society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased
security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to
the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not
intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official
of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or
military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor
the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold
from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
.
.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril.
In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in
an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized
disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the
courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment
must yield to the public’s need for national security.
.
.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may
be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion.
- Our way of life is under attack.
- Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe.
The survival of our friends is in danger.
- And yet no war has been declared,
- no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that
- the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in
tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every
businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy
- that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–
- on infiltration instead of invasion,
- on subversion instead of elections,
- on intimidation instead of free choice,
on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic,
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced,
not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time
discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
.
.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the
necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains
whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to
oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
.
.
For the facts of the matter are that this
nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers
information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft,
bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations
- have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike;
that the size, the strength, the location and
the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for
their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to
a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least
in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism
whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
.
.
The newspapers which printed these stories
were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been
engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such
items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
.
.
The question is for you alone to answer.
No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan
should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing
in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities
that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those
responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention,
- and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your
newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to
every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
.
.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of
War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new
forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
.
.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?”
And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and
public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their
endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
.
.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
.
.
Perhaps
there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the
dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
.
.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And
that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make
certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand
them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
.
.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding;
and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are
necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the
Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed....
.
.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all.
In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of
gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible
consequences of failure.
.
.
And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
.
No comments:
Post a Comment