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.
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 that 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 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, 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 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 Informa