Senator ERVIN. You say in an ideal world or in an ideal society, Government officials or Government employees converse freely with public scholars who are conducting investigations. The public scholars would receive information freely from the employee. The employee could also discuss matters on a confidential basis with the assurance that his identity will not be disclosed. Mr. BARNET. That is right. Senator ERVIN. So in your quest for information regarding a particular document or Government policy, you receive much information from sources which would cease to be available to you, if you were compelled to reveal their identity. Mr. BARNET. That is right. Senator ERVIN. It is your position that any proposal or legislation concerning sources of information of the public scholar should be under the first amendment. Mr. BARNET. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the first amendment does now, and of course should cover confidential sources of information, for both news media and all persons who are in the business of investigating and communicating information to the public. Senator ERVIN. As you see it as the late Justice Black statedthe first amendment is absolute in nature. I believe the current interpretation is that the only time it is not absolute is when the Government can demonstrate an overriding public interest or when a criminal prosecution is involved. There is undoubtedly a first amendment interest in the gathering of information and in the dissemination of truth. Government has an interest in enforcing laws which are necessary to protect society, including the first amendment. People often must seek some way to reconcile, as far as possible, both these interests. So we must consider that problem also. Mr. BARNET. Yes, sir, that is true, and I can certainly see a number of situations where the conflicts occur. But I think in the area that we're talking about-the protection of confidential sources of newsmen and public scholars serves the best interest of the public. Senator ERVIN. I want to thank you for your very fine contribution to this hearing. Mr. BARNET. Thank you very much. Senator ERVIN. This hearing is recessed, and will reconvene to-morrow, at 10 o'clock in room 318, Old Senate Office Building. (The hearing was then duly closed at 12:50 p.m.) 76-387-72– -6 FREEDOM OF THE PRESS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE Washington, D.C. in room The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Kennedy, Hruska, and Scott. Also Present: Lawrence M. Baskir, chief counsel, and Bill Pursley, counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee continues today to focus upon the relationship between Government and the broadcast media. Assisting us in this connection is one of America's most outstanding broadcast journalists, Mr. Walter Cronkite. In addition, the subcommittee is indebted to Professor Jerome Barron of the George Washington Law School, and Mr. Lawrence Leamer, former associate editor of Newsweek magazine, for appearing before the subcommittee today upon very short notice. I regret that Professor Philip Kurland and Mr. James J. Kilpatrick, could not be with us today because of personal considerations. Both of these gentlemen have asked to be rescheduled in the hope they can appear before the subcommittee during these hearings. At the conclusion of today's testimony, this series of hearings of freedom of the press will recess until October 12. At that time, we will resume our consideration of this important subject and continue on October 13, 14, and on October 19 and 20. I understand that Senator Hruska would like to make a statement at this point. Senator Hruska. Senator HRUSKA. These hearings on "Freedom of the Press" come at a time when there are more critical issues facing the Nation than at any other. The rights and responsibilities of the press are near the top of that list. Today, as never before, the American people dote on the news. More people want to know more of what is going on, and more are willing to take the time to find out. To satisfy this urge people must naturally rely on the news media. The freedom which our Founding Fathers properly gave to the press thus takes on dimensions inconceivable to the drafters of the first amendment. Radio, television, satellites, the mails, and mass distribution of the printed word have combined to give the news media awesome power and authority in the affairs of the Nation. This Senator would be among the first to praise the media for the general way in which they have accepted and met the responsibility which goes with this power. As Mr. Isaacs stated on the opening day of these hearings, the press has its faults and makes mistakes. I would agree, however, that these are primarily due to limitations in time and space as well as just plain human error. Nevertheless, the subject at hand is most deserving of the kind of study the chairman has laid out. The Government's attitude toward the press should be clarified, and the need for legislation such as Senator Pearson's bill (S. 1311) must be carefully analyzed. At the same time, the responsibility of the press should be examined very closely. It is not alone for the media to tell the people how and what it is doing. I believe this type of inquiry by public officials who are directly responsible to the people through the ballot box is essential. While it is understood that one of the news media's most important functions, as conceived by the first amendment, is to provide a check on government, less understood are the controls on the checkers. How absolute is the first amendment? Must we indeed tolerate abuses in the name of freedom? Is prior restraint of the press ever permissible or desirable? Is there a need for a reporter-confidant relationship? Is there a way to eliminate bias in the press without circumscribing its freedom? The sensitivity of this subject should not deter us from exploring it fully, and on every side. I am sure the people would like to be educated in the various levels of judgment brought to bear on a news article before it reaches publication. Undoubtedly there are many who would like to go behind the scenes to watch television network's activities as it puts together its daily news program which will be watched and, in many cases, taken as gospel by millions of Americans. This has been done in other ways and at other times, but I believe some further exploration by this subcommittee would be highly valuable. The chairman is to be commended for scheduling these hearings, and for his usual forthright approach to the subject. This list of witnesses is impressive. Their contribution to our goal will be most helpful, I am sure. As elected officials, we of the Subcommittee must make our contribution as well. Our interest is manyfold. The majority of my constituent mail is motivated by articles in the press or by news reports on radio and television. These accounts make it plain that often we see the news one way and the media another. But this Senator happens to be a subscriber to the views of a former President who observed that one in public life should depart from the kitchen when the temperature rises too high for his comfort. I would like to finally observe at this time that a critical examination of the press and its responsibilities does not constitute an attack on the first amendment. This bulwark against oppression should not be used as a shield against valid criticism. I am confident that the Chairman shares this view-his opening statement for these hearings makes it plain that he agrees. There are 90 million television sets in 95 percent of American homes, and countless radios. In 1969 some 62 million newspapers were sold daily. As we say in the legal profession, res ipsa loquitur-the thing speaks for itself. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Cronkite, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee and express our deep appreciation for your willingness to appear and give us the benefit of your observations on what I consider to be one of the most important of the problems which confront our country. STATEMENT OF WALTER CRONKITE, NEWS CORRESPONDENT, COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM Mr. CRONKITE. Thank you. Senator. I would like to express my appreciation to this committee for going into this subject with the view to drawing up whatever corrective legislation it finds necessary to bring up to date our guarantees of free press and free speech. I would like to make it clear that I am speaking here only for myself today, and do not represent the Columbia Broadcasting System as such, and my association with CBS news staff is that of contract talent. That is a euphemism, I am sure. The testimony I give today is completely my own, it has not been approved by CBS. I would hope that the executives thereof agree with most of it, but am not sure they agree with all of it. Most of us in journalism are deeply concerned over such issues as right-of-access to news sources, Government secrecy, harassment by subpena, and the protection of news sources. These are concerns common to all communications media. I know you are going to hear a lot about that from other media, and I would restrict my presentation, therefore, if I may, to the special problem inhibiting the freedom of broadcast journalism. It is assumed, of course, that we do want a free press. Such is synonomous with democracy. There are a few who would argue otherwise. However, I daresay there is scarcely a public figure anywhere who has not at one time or another, perhaps more frequently than not, railed at his treatment by the press. And, of course, right here I am referring to the press as a generic term to include all media. Senator ERVIN. As I stated at the opening of these hearings, I guess I am one of the few men in political life who doesn't complain much about his treatment at the hands of the press. The press takes me to task every once in awhile, but they have always been very kind, not attributing my hypocrisy to bad motives. They have always attributed it to a lack of mental capacity. Mr. CRONKITE. I know from time to time, sir, and not always without reason, we are considered untrustworthy, disloyal, unkind, disobedient, sullen, cowardly, dirty, and irrelevant. And this is as it should be. To be trustworthy in one man's eye may not be to warrant trust in another's. While individual reporters or journalists may at one time or another place their loyalty at the feet of one man, or ideology, it is the very strength of a free press that not all reporters and journalists will do so. In this diversity, is the strength of the free press. Down through our history, particularly at times of national stress, there have been calls for bringing the press to heel. Now, again, much is being made of that. Much is being made of the alleged prejudices and bias of newsmen, particularly those of us in this powerful new medium of television. These charges, I submit, are not unique to television. X |