|
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 t. he 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 to 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
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.
It is true, however, that when a well-known
diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department
repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary
for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the
press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible
for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not
to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the
contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about
political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my
purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press
conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000
Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say
so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by
your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to
examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any
President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House
reporters and photographers have been attending church services with
regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff
and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy
the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object
as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the
other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a
more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
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 far greater public information;
and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
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,
scientific and political operations.
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 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.
That 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 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 this same exacting test.
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.
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.
I not only could not stifle controversy among
your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about
its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a
mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full
responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we
miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no
Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive.
That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any
citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was
protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America
specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and
entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply
"give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to
state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our
choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of
international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at
hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of
the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that
government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the
fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national
security--and we intend to do it.
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.
Photo gallery and research
relating to John Fitzgerald Kenned's assassination:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photogal.htm
|