First Amendment in the Marketplace: Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression (Redish), 39 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 429 (March 1971). Freedom to Hear: A Political Justification of the First Amendment 46 Wash. L. Rev. 311 (1971). Free Speech and the Mass Media, 57 Va. L. Rev. 636 (May 1971). How Texas Legislators View News Coverage of Their Work (Merwin), 48 Journalism Quarterly. 269 (Summer 1971). Media Concentration and the FCC: Focusing With A Section Seven Lens (Bennett), 66 Nw. L. U. Rev. 159 (May-June 1971). Morality and the Broadcast Media: A Constitutional Analysis of FCC Regulatory Standards, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 664 (1971). Political Broadcasts-A Few Short Steps Forward (Geller), 20 Catholic U. L. Rev. 449 (Spring 1971). Presidential Politics and Political Prerequisites: The Application of Section 315 and the FCC's Fairness Doctrine to the Appearances of Incumbents in Their Official Capacities, 39 Fordham L. Rev. 481 (March 1971). Radio, Television and the Community (Anawalt), 11 Santa Clara Law 229 (Spring 1971). Television Presidential Addresses and the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, 7 Colum. A Twentieth-Century Soapbox: The Right to Purchase Radio and Television (Articles Other Than Law Review Articles): Broadcasting's Pre-Emptive Court, Broadcasting Vol. 81 (August 30, 1971: 17-19, 22-23). Broadcast License: CBS Has Forfeited Access to the Nation's Airwaves, Barron's, March 29, 1971, pp. 1, 10, 12. Broadcast Spending: No Election Guarantee, Congressional Quarterly, Weekly Report Vol. 29, July 30, 1971: 1621-1629. The Cassett Hi-Fi TV FM And Other Marvels of the Foreseeable and Foreaudible Future (Kloss), Christian Science Monitor, September 25, 1971, p. 7. Is Objectivity Possible (McDonald), 4 Center Magazine 29 (October 1971). More Trees In Campaign Forest, Broadcasting, v. 80, June 14, 1971: 54-57. Platforms & Windows: Broadcasting's Role in Election Campaigns (Katz), 48 Journalism Quarterly 304 (Summer 1971). Political Programs on National Television Networks: 1968 (Topping & Lighty), 15 J. of Broadcasting 161 (1971). Radio-TV No Sure Way to Get Elected, 81 Broadcasting 34 (July 5, 1971). Broadcast News and the Fairness Doctrine (Dunham), Address Before the Aronson, James, Packaging the News: A Critical Survey of Press, Radio, TV (New York: International Publishers, 1971). fron, E., The News Twisters (1971). toper, An Extended View of Public Attitudes Toward Television and Other Mass Media 1959-1971 (1971). elevision: The Only Truly Mass Medium Remaining Today (Miller), Department of Communications Arts, New York State College of Agriculture & Life Sciences (1971). ELIZABETH YADLOSKY THE INVESTIGATION OF NEWSMAN DANIEL SCHORR NOVEMBER 12, 1971. HON. RICHARD M. NIXON The President, The White House. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As you know, the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights has been conducting hearings on the state of freedom of the press in our country. We are giving special attention to the relationship between government and the press and the impact of this relationship upon First Amendment freedoms. In personal letters inviting several high-level officials of your Administration to present testimony to the Subcommittee, I have expressed my concern over the increasing suspicion of many Americans that government appears anxious to use its power to control the press for its own purposes. Recent newspaper reports of an alleged investigation of Mr. Daniel Schorr, correspondent for Columbia Broadcasting System, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have clearly exacerbated this suspicion. One report suggests that this investigation was undertaken under the guise of considering Mr. Schorr for a top position in the Federal government. Apparently neither Mr. Schorr nor various White House officials with general responsibility in the area of recruiting were aware of any such appointment under consideration. I am deeply concerned over the fears, even unwarranted fears, which may arise from the public reports concerning the alleged investigation of Mr. Schorr. First Amendment freedoms can be stilled by intimidation and suggestion from those who have official power just as surely as they can by direct curtailment. I should like to urge that you make inquiry into this matter and that you provide me with any information developed therefrom. I also intend to invite Mr. Schorr, Mr. Malek, Mr. Colson and other persons involved in this incident to appear before the Subcommittee when it resumes hearings on freedom of the press early in January. In addition, may I express again the desire of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to have Mr. Klein or some other official of comparable responsibility from the White House also testify. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : This is in response to your letters of December 3, 1971 to the President, Mr. Frederick V. Malek and Mr. Charles W. Colson concerning the investigation of Mr. Daniel Schorr. You have indicated in your letter to the President that your inquiry is prompted by concerns and suspicions which have risen in connection with this matter and the need to put them to rest. We fully agree that any concerns and suspicions which have arisen must be eliminated and we have moved to do just that by publicly stating the precise reason the investigation of Mr. Schorr was conducted. Also, upon reviewing this matter, the President has made it the policy of this Administration that such preliminary job clearance investigations will not be initiated without prior notification to the person being investigated. Despite some inaccurate conjecture to the contrary, the facts in this situation are quite simple. Mr. Schorr was being considered for a post that is presently filled and a routine job investigation was commenced without notifying Mr. Schorr. Mr. Malek's office was performing in its general area of talent searching in this matter. Mr. Colson's office was not involved in the matter at all. Given these facts, there is nothing more we believe can be added to clarify the situation. With respect to your request for the appearance of Mr. Malek and Mr. Colson before your Subcommittee. it has been a matter of long-established principle and precedent that members of the President's immediate staff do not appear before Congressional committees to testify in regard to the performance of their duties as members of the President's staff. This practice is, indeed, fundamental to the operation of our system of government. Therefore, I wish to advise you that Mr. Malek and Mr. Colson respectfully decline the invitation to testify. Sincerely, JOHN W. DEAN, III, Counsel to the President. HON. J. EDGAR HOOVER, JANUARY 24, 1972. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HOOVER: As you may know the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights is studying the state of freedom of the press in America. In this connection the Subcommittee conducted a series of hearings in the fall of 1971 and will resume them on February 1, 1972. One of the primary concerns of the Subcommittee's study is the relationship between government and the press. Many Americans, rightly or wrongly, have become suspicious about government's commitment to First Amendment principles. Several developments of the past few years have exacerbated these suspicions. One recent incident, involving Mr. Daniel Schorr of the Columbia Broadcasting System, has raised expecially widespread and serious concern. Mr. Schorr publicly reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation of him last year at a time when Mr. Schorr was reporting on the Administration's economic policies. Administration spokesmen subsequently stated that this investigation of Mr. Schorr was authorized and conducted pursuant to the Administration's consideration of Mr. Schorr for a government appointment. Mr. Schorr, in turn, responded that he had had no knowledge of such consideration. Although President Nixon has said that in the future no such investigation will be initiated without informing the person involved, there are serious questions concerning this matter which remained unanswered. The Subcommittee has invited Mr. Schorr and certain White House officials reportedly involved with this incident to appear before the Subcommittee. Mr. Schorr has agreed to testify, but we have as yet not heard from the White House officials. The Subcommittee would appreciate any information which the FBI has concerning this incident. Specifically, we would like to know under what and whose authority the FBI conducted its investigation. We would like to know when the investigation was begun, who in the White House ordered it, and when the investigation was terminated. We would like to know approximately how many persons were questioned about Mr. Schorr, the kind of information the FBI was asked to gather, and the general nature of the investigation. Finally, we are interested in knowing what has happened to any records, files, or other materials collected in the course of the investigation. The Subcommittee will be grateful to this and other information the FBI can supply concerning this matter. I am sure that you know of my continuing high regard for the outstanding work of the FBI and of my personal admiration for your leadership over the years. With kindest wishes, Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Chairman. JANUARY 27, 1972. HON. SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter dated January 24. 1972, regarding the investigation of Mr. Daniel Louis Schorr. Investigation of Mr. Schorr was requested on August 19, 1971, by a member of the White House staff, authorized to request federal personnel background investigations. The investigation was referred to our field offices, but no inquiries were conducted until the morning of August 20, 1971. Mr. Schorr was contacted at approximately 8:30 a.m. on August 20, 1971, to obtain appropriate background data. He was informed of the investigation and later that morning made background data available to us. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the same day, we learned from officials of the Columbia Broadcasting System that Mr. Schorr desired the investigation to be discontinued. The investigation was discontinued at approximately that hour pursuant to instructions from the White House. Prior to the discontinuance of our investigation, twenty-five persons were interviewed concerning Mr. Schorr. This Bureau was not specifically requested by the White House to obtain any particular type of information during the investigation. The investigation was requested as a routine background investigation for possible federal appointment in which we make inquiries regarding a person's character, loyalty, general standing, and ability. The imcomplete investigation of Mr. Schorr was entirely favorable concerning him and the results were furnished to the White House. Sincerely yours, HON. J. EDGAR HOOVER, J. EDGAR HOOVER, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1972. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HOOVER: On yesterday, I was astounded at what was reported to be a news article in the Washington Post which stated that on the previous day I stated during the course of an investigation into the Daniel Schorr matter that I intended to propose some legislation to limit the activities of the FBI. On yesterday morning, the Subcommittee resumed the hearings, and I made a statement on this subject, a copy of which I enclose. The entire article seemed to be based on inferences drawn from a mere remark on my part that I did not think that any person in the Executive Branch of the service should ask the FBI to make an investigation of the qualifications of any man for appointment to a public office unless such official first ascertained from such individual that he would accept such office if offered, and advise the official that an investigation was being made in connection with the prospective appointment. The FBI certainly did not do anything except its legal duty in initiating the investigation of Mr. Schorr at the instance of some official in the White House. With all kind wishes, I am Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, JR. OPENING REMARKS BY SENATOR SAM J. ERVIN, JR. Yesterday during the hearings I made certain oral statements. There is always a hazard in making oral statements which is two-fold. The person who makes an oral statement may not express himself correctly or he may not be correctly understood by some of his audience. I refer to certain statements attributed to me, and if I made any remarks justifying these statements, they certainly were inadvertently made. I did not blame the FBI in any way for its investigation of CBS commentator Daniel Schorr. I don't think Mr. Schorr criticized the FBI in any way in respect to that investigation. Under the laws and the Executive Office, the FBI is an agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government and it is required to make an investigation whenever ordered to do so either by the President as the head of the executive branch of the Government or any person whom it believes is authorized to speak for the President, and likewise when requested by the Department of Justice. The FBI merely performed its duty in this case. I accept at face value the statement of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover that the FBI was requested by a properly authorized person in the White House to make the investigation of Mr. Schorr with a view to determining his fitness from the standpoint of character and loyalty to fill some Federal office which was not designated to the FBI or to anybody else. I do agree with Mr. Schorr's observations that before any official, who is authorized by the executive department to request the FBI to make an investigation to determine fitness for the appointment to Federal office, acts, that official should inform the person being investigated of the investigation, of the objective of the investigation, and the office for which he is being considered. With due respect to everybody concerned, I think there is a certain amount of stupidity demonstrated by investigating a man's fitness for appointment to Federal office without first consulting that individual and ascertaining whether he would accept the office if it is offered to him, but the FBI was not responsible in any way for that stupidity. The FBI performs a most important function in our country. In the first place, it is necessary for those having appointive powers in the Federal Government to ascertain the loyalty and fitness of an American being considered for an appointment to a public office. Therefore, the FBI has that duty when requested to do so by a proper official. Furthermore, the FBI is authorized to make investigations at the request of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is justified in making those requests whenever they have information which seems to indicate to them that some individual or some group has violated the law or is about to violate the law. Now, if you had a law that said that the FBI or any other law enforcement agency of the government, Federal or State, couldn't investigate a person or group to ascertain whether circumstances reasonably indicated they were about to violate the law or had violated the law, unless that violation was first established, then in effect, you couldn't have any investigations at all. If the FBI, or any other agency of government that has law enforcement powers, undertakes to investigate a charge that perhaps I have violated the law or am about to violate the law, they may wind up with a finding after an investigation that I hadn't violated the law and wasn't about to violate the law. So I just wanted to make these remarks to clarify this situation and to defuse any emotions which might have resulted from anything I inadvertently said or inadvertently was suspected of having said. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOV. SAM J. ERVIN, JR., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, regarding the hearings on the state of freedom of the press in America and the controversy surrounding Mr. Daniel Schorr, news correspondent for the Columbia Broadcasting System. To my knowledge Mr. Schorr has not been considered for any position in the Environmental Protection Agency, nor is he under consideration for any position in the Agency at this time. The list of top-level positions which the Agency filled around August 1, 1971, or was actively recruiting for through executive assignment procedures is enclosed as requested. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, |