Mr. PERLIK. Under a second method, a newsman receives from his employer a press card carrying both his and his employer's identity, but bearing the signature of a public official, most often a police chief or commissioner, attesting to those items of information. In these instances the public official, who issues the card, sends a number of signed cards to someone in a newspaper's management ranks like a managing editor-and he has a newsman's name, et cetera, put on the card before the newsman receives it.

Under a third method of issuing press cards, the issuing public agency, again most often a law enforcement body, is requested to issue a card to a newsman identified in the application and the card comes to the newsman minus perhaps only his signature and/or photo. In some instances managements request and receive the card

on the newsman's behalf and give it to him. In other instances the newsman himself requests and receives the card directly from the issuing official or agency.

The California Highway Patrol issues a press card under the third method. We understand it is used widely in the state. On the front of the card it issued in 1971 the legend "1971/Press/California/Highway Patrol" is superimposed on a reproduction of a police badge and appears more prominently than the name of the newsman and the paper which employs him. Again I would like to offer a photostatic copy of the California Highway Patrol press card, again under the same limitation you have put on the others.

Mr. BASKIR. Subject to the Senator's approval, that will be accepted also.

(The item referred to follows:)

THIS CARD IS ISSUED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING

THE HOLDER AS AN ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION
STATED. IN USING IT, THE HOLDER AGREES TO ABIDE BY ORDERS OR
DIRECTIONS GIVEN HIM BY POLICE OFFICERS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

THIS CARD MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON AND
IT IS TO BE RELINQUISHED TO THE EMPLOYER UPON TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT.

I ACCEPT THE ABOVE

Signature of Holder

(OVER)

Mr. PERLIK. The reverse side of cards issued under both the second and third methods usually contains a statement to the effect that it has been issued for identification purposes only, a pledge that the holder will abide by orders or directions given him by police in carrying out their duties and perhaps a second pledge that the newsman will return the card if he leaves his present employer. Below all this is a place for the newsman to indicate his acquiesence to those conditions with his signature.

Press cards falling into the third category have produced most of the tension that has risen among newsmen over press cards in recent years.

When newsmen must depend on Government agents or agencies to obtain press cards-the basic document of their identity and acceptability-it is in fact a form of licensing and as such is subject to the same sort of abuses as any other kind of licensing.

When the Newspaper Guild, in a resolution by its 1968 convention, first took official notice of problems involving the issuance of press cards we called for them to be "issued without discrimination to persons employed in gathering news" and condemned their being "withheld (as reportedly occurring in Los Angeles) simply because a law enforcement officer does not like what the reporter writes." A veteran newspaperman who recently joined the Guild's staff reports that several years ago when he worked in Las Vegas, Nev., two reporters were denied press cards issued there, at least then, by the police because a "routine" police check revealed that they had police records. They lost their jobs because they couldn't get a police press card, he tells us. (There was and is no Guild contract in Las Vegas to protect newsmen from such treatment, by the way.)

Tension also has arisen over press cards issued by law enforcement agencies when in several instances the agencies apparently have not been averse to issuing some to their own agents, enabling them to masquerade as working newsmen.

In several instances law enforcement officials have admitted employing this sort of ruse. In one of the most brazen of these admissions, just about a year ago, the California Justice Department's chief of law enforcement, backed by the State's attorney general, stated that he would not hesitate to have one of his agents pose as a newsman in order to gather information.

Our 1968 convention voiced the Guild's condemnation of this practice, too, "not only because of its doubtful ethics but because it believes such conduct could destroy news sources and the willingness of the public to be interviewed by authentic members of the press as well as the trust of newsmen in general."

***

Our 1969, 1970, and 1971 conventions, repeated the call for an end to the practice, with our 1971 convention noting that under this practice "the public cannot be sure *** who is a reporter and who is a secret agent" with "the result, in some cases *** that the physical safety and the very lives of working newsmen have been placed in jeopardy."

Even if dependence on Government agents and agencies for the issuance of press cards had not in any instance had a chilling effect on the press and its practitioners' ability to function freely, the

practice is a form of licensing and as such contrary to the first amendment. The practice should stop. The press should issue its own basic credentials of identification.

Despite the alarms raised by some in recent years over the press' real and imagined shortcomings, the First Amendment guarantee of press freedom has served and continues to serve this Nation well. I would ask those who seem to favor making the press less free: Do you really believe that the U.S. citizenry ought to have to depend on the willingness of newsmen to serve jail terms in order to continue to obtain information necessary to fulfill their function. of governmental watchdogs?

Do you really believe that news which may be embarrassing to some in public positions ought be cleared with those same officials before it can be published?

Do you really believe that the Government ought to have the power to decide who is qualified to gather news?

If anything is called for today, it seems to me, it is an even broader application of the free press protections under the First Amendment, such as occurred in Supreme Court decisions on libel in recent years.

(Attached to Mr. Perlik's statement is a copy of a resolution by the 38th Annual Convention, The Newspaper Guild, which is printed on page 465.)

Mr. BASKIR. Thank you, Mr. Perlik.

In discussing the issue of credentials, you mention some difficulties that members of the press have had in various areas, and I believe you suggested that you prefer to have these credentials issued by the newspapers themselves rather than from any official bodies. We have had some testimony as well as other information to the effect that whatever the difficulties are with respect to the regular working members of the establishment press, the difficulties are far more severe for members of the so-called underground press and for college newspapers. I wonder if you feel that your comments with respect to press credentials apply any differently to those aspects of the press?

Mr. PERLIK. No, sir, they do not. We think for an industry to control the method of issuing press credentials, such credentials should be available to anybody who can demonstrate that he is an authentic news gatherer, no matter what forum he may wish to use the news he gathers in.

Mr. BASKIR. Do you have any instances of the extent of difficulties with respect to the college press or the underground press, or would you be able to supply them to the subcommittee later?

Mr. PERLIK. We are certainly aware of certain incidents, yes. I do not happen to have with me any precise details I would care. to put on the record as a statement of sufficient accuracy. But if you would receive further submissions of that sort, we would be happy to supply them.

Mr. BASKIR. Is my understanding correct that in the Senate press gallery, the practice is to have members of the Senate press corps admit people into membership as sort of

Mr. PERLIK. In my understanding, there is a committee elected

76-387-72- -38

by the correspondents, which is the regulating body in determining who else shall sit in the Senate press gallery.

Mr. BASKIR. I seem to recall that sometime ago there was a controversy because some members of the underground press wanted to gain admittance. Can you refresh our memory as to what that incident was all about and how it eventually turned out?

Mr. CESNIK. I am Jim Cesnik, director of research and information with the Guild.

Eventually, at least one member of the so-called underground press was admitted. I think it was the same gentleman who was more recently denied access to the White House Press Corps, whatever the credential is that you need to get into the White House. I am not thoroughly conversant with all the details of the flap that surrounded the certification or the admission into the Senate press gallery.

There are some problems that arise in some areas which I do not know that it necessarily applies to the Senate press gallery, because there are certainly a great number of people accredited to the Senate press gallery. But there are from time to time such things as available physical space if everybody who is accredited shows up at the same time. But we think this is a kind of separate question. It does not really go to the question of whether or not access, given space, ought to be available.

Mr. BASKIR. Of course, if you have the press corps itself issuing credentials, you will also run into the difficulty of that group of people excluding other members of the press, presumably the college press or underground press, for political reasons. The effect would be the same as if the official body had excluded those members.

Mr. CESNIK. I do not think ultimately, no. I think members of the press are more likely to be ultimately persuaded of the correctness of the of the error of their ways than someone in an official capacity. I think generally speaking, people in the press, or at least in a body, are more apt to admit that they have made an error than is a police department. If, for instance, you had to have 51 members of the Senate vote to admit you to the Senate press gallery, perhaps you would stand a better chance with the working press in the Senate admitting they made a mistake, than you do with the Senate itself admitting it made a mistake, if that is not too far out.

Mr. BASKIR. Certainly the people about whom mistakes are made are the people whose interest it is to point out the mistakes.

Mr. CESNIK. Yes, certainly.

Mr. BASKIR. I suppose the other world of difference is it is one thing to have censorship by a private body, but the First Amendment applies to government and if the effect might be the same, still the principle is different.

Mr. PERLIK. Of course.

Mr. BASKIR. You mentioned the use of press covers. The subcommittee in other hearings had a lot of testimony about the use of press covers by investigative agencies. Do you find that this is a problem which is continuing, getting worse, lessening because of the publicity during the last couple of years.

Mr. PERLIK. If I had to characterize it, I think the publicity is