I

We talk a great deal about the withholding of information. think it is vitally important for your committee and for the country, too, to know how information is in fact withheld. It is desirable to be specific about it.

The obvious basic technique is the indiscriminate use of the classification "security." There is hardly any item of important information that I can think of for which there is not some excuse or other to use the classification "security." For example, any information coming in from any of our embassies abroad is naturally classified, because it has passed through the security channels of communication between the Embassy and Washington. The information itself may be public knowledge on the streets of Taipeh; but, by the time it gets to Washington, although it may be of the greatest national importance, it is classified. In other words, you have nonsecret

secrets.

In addition to this extension of the use of the classification "security" with respect to facts which are not secret, this extension has gone so far that, as a friend of mine once remarked, "Even bathroom. paper for bathroom use is confidential."

În addition to this, you have in the last 5 or 6 years had a very novel technique which has been employed in the Federal Government to prevent the publication of information which the Government desires, for one reason or another, to keep secret. It is a rather simple technique. The newspaperman who ventures to publish what he regards as a life-and-death fact of considerable national importance is ordered to be investigated. Now this investigation entails no personal inconvenience to the newspaperman at all, except the lingering doubt about whether he is having his wires tapped, but it does entail the utmost inconvenience for his friends and acquaintances and for any official he goes to in the pursuit of his legitimate function of trying to get the facts to furnish to the American public. And this has gone so far now that in many of the more critical agencies the task of getting the facts, and particularly the facts that are really important, has become for all newspapermen increasingly more difficult. And if it goes much further, in my opinion the facts won't be got at all.

This business of investigating newspapermen is done in the sacred name of security.

I feel very strongly, of course, that facts which are genuinely affected with security should never be published. Most of them, as a matter of fact, are not very interesting. They are technical facts having to do with the nature of construction of weapons; they are details of diplomatic intercourse. They are mainly facts in those sorts of areas.

But you have to ask yourself-what is security, before this business of classifying everything in the name of security and taking reprisals against people who defiantly publish facts of great national importance is to be tolerated.

You say what is security? Well, you have to begin by remembering that the boss in this country, thank God, is the American people. It is not the Secretary of the Security Council; it is not Mr. Wilson; it is not any of of these people at all. The people is the master. And in our kind of society, we cannot hope to operate successfully unless the master of the society, the people, knows the essential facts. You

have a very difficult problem that enters in right here, owing quite largely to technological progress; the facts of the national situation are changing now, from year to year, almost as radically as if we woke up tomorrow morning to find the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had dried up. Weapon changes, political changes abroad, economic changes even. All of these intimately and violently affect our national situation.

These changes are just as important to every one of us as whether our mortgages are paid up on time, or whether there is a depression or whether our job is secure.

Precisely these facts concerning the changes in the national situation are those which are most highly classified. The excuses for this are many and some of them are even rather persuasive. But what, in fact, happens? Security defeats its own end. On the one hand, what are these facts which are so highly classified? Almost all of these facts are well known to the enemy. The vast majority of them actually concern the enemy; they concern his program in weapons development, in armament; they concern the preparations that may be made for action in the Formosa Strait. They concern the preparations that are going on today for actions in the Middle East. Many of them actually concern enemy activity, not American activity.

In the second place, not only are the facts known to the enemy; they are not known to the American people, and so what happens to the official who has classified the facts, who orders reprisals against newspapermen who publish the facts? He does so in the name of security. Those facts demand a national response. There can be no such national response unless the American people are willing to make that response. They cannot be expected to make that response unless they know the reason for that response. And so, quite often, in a situation of genuinely dire danger, you will go in to see an official who will say, yes, he knows what ought to be done, but how can it be done; the American people will not stand for it. Why will they not stand for it? Because he has not told them why they ought to stand for it. And it is that security, this kind of security, in my judgment, which breeds nothing but insecurity and may breed ruin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Alsop.

We will now hear from Mr. Hugh Boyd, publisher of the Daily Home News and the Sunday Times, of New Brunswick, N. J., and a member of the NEA Freedom of Information Committee.

STATEMENT OF HUGH BOYD, PUBLISHER, DAILY HOME NEWS AND THE SUNDAY TIMES, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, my report is going to be very brief, limited to one phase concerning the access to news for the reason that these other gentlemen have covered the whole field much more fully than I could.

This viewpoint that I am going to express, regarding access to information in this report refers specifically to the importance of gathering news from Federal Government agencies which operate in the field. It is not intended to relate instances of news suppression. It is intended to express the viewpoint of the newspaperman working on a paper published in a nonmetropolitan community.

It is intended to illustrate the importance of this source of Federal Government news as it affects the daily newspapers published in the so-called small daily category.

As there has been considerable discussion as to a proper definition of the small daily newspaper, as compared with the metropolitan dailies, I would first like to describe the yardstick I have used in establishing this definition.

The yardstick used in this definition is that of circulation. I have placed the daily newspaper whose circulation is 25,000 and less in the category of the small daily.

According to information received from the records of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, there are, in this country, 1,296 daily papers published whose circulation is 25,000 or less.

Of this number, there are 894 daily papers whose circulation is 10,000 or less. There are 402 daily papers published in the 10-to-25 thousand circulation bracket.

Nearly all of these daily newspapers are served by a wire service. In addition to this, certain of these papers supplement this service by having their own Washington correspondent.

Despite that fact, these newspapers come into direct and frequent contact with Federal Government agencies and offices in the field.

It is for this reason that it is all-important that these newspapers do not encounter instances of news suppression on the part of Federal Government agencies operating in the field.

Due to the widespread activities of the military, the various Government agencies which operate field offices, the courts, and the many other sources of Federal news, this whole question of contacting the Federal field agency field offices has become a major factor in the daily newsgathering activities of our staffs.

My paper is published in New Jersey. In that State alone, there are 32 Federal Government news sources operating in the field. In addition to the main offices and facilities that these Federal sources operate, there are numerous branch offices and minor divisions of the Federal Government which, from our viewpoint, are news sources.

Unless this condition is clearly understood, it is quite possible to think that the small daily newspaper has little or no direct contact with the Federal Government operating in the field.

Unless the situation is carefully analyzed, it is also possible to believe that the small daily paper gets all its Federal Government news either through its wire service or else from its Washington correspondent. Obviously this is not the case.

The small daily newspaperman is keenly interested in Federal Government news which develops in the field. It is his responsibility to get this news for the readers of his paper.

For that reason, the small daily newspaperman is fully aware of the importance of these news sources. He must be aware of the great need for keeping these sources open.

He also must realize the serious consequences if these sources were to be closed to him, to his paper, and to his readers.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. Our next panel member is Mr. William L. Beale, chief of the Washington Bureau of the Associated Press.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. BEALE, JR., CHIEF, WASHINGTON BUREAU, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mr. BEALE. Mr. Chairman, the Associated Press exists solely to collect and distribute a reliable news record. In performing this job, the Associated Press staff does its best to cut through any obstacles or inaccess to what is recognized by American newspapermen as legitimate news. Associated Press reporters in Washington and elsewhere are continually protesting unreasonable blocks to newspaper reporting, especially those raised by Government units, whether Federal, State, or local. The principle emphasis to our Washington staff to counter official refusals to supply information has been covered in our news reports. They are also cited in the studies made of various media organizations into freedom of information. This material is so completely on the record that I can add nothing at this time of importance to the main issues concerning this committee.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Beale.

Mr. BEALE. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. We will hear next from Mr. James Reston of the New York Times.

STATEMENT OF JAMES RESTON, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Mr. RESTON. Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid repetition, I would like to emphasize just 1 or 2 points which perhaps have not been touched upon very fully this morning. Most of my colleagues here have been talking primarily about the suppression of news.

I would like to direct the committee, if I may, to an equally important aspect of this problem which I think is the growing tendency to manage the news. Let me see if I can illustrate what I mean.

I think there was a conscious effort to give to the news at the Geneva Conference an optimistic flavor. I think there was a conscious effort there, decided upon even perhaps ahead of time for spokesmen to emphasize all the optimistic facts coming out of that conference and to minimize all of the quarrels at that conference with the results which we all have seen.

There was, after the Geneva Conference a decision taken in the Government that perhaps this was having a bad effect, that the people in the Western countries were letting down their guard, and therefore a decision was made, primarily upon the appeal of Chancellor Adenauer of Germany, that the Government should strike another note. So that after the Geneva smiling, the new word went out that it might be a good idea now to frown a little bit, so the President made a speech at Philadelphia, taking quite a different light about the Geneva Conference. That is what I mean by managing the news. And I would urge your committee to look into that a bit, because, while it is bad to suppress a bit of information, it would seem to me to be even worse, if all of the newsmaking powers of the Federal Government were to blanket the newspaper situation with the theme which perhaps they did not believe was quite true, but might be an instrument of their thought. That is my first point, which is a tendency that has happened many times in the past. It is not a political point, but I think there is a growing tendency for the diplomat to use the press as an

instrument of his diplomacy, and perhaps in the process, it is misleading the American people.

Another point, perhaps also something of an imponderable as well, is related to what Mr. Alsop said. He talked about the tendency to investigate the newspapermen. That, of course, is true and we have all had experiences with it. But I would urge the committee, if it is really trying to get at the heart of this problem, as to how news is blocked up, that it also look into the psychological effect of the investigation of civil servants. In my judgment, for what it is worth, and certainly my experience is that a good reporter in this town gets his news, not at the top level, but at the pick and shovel level, down at the lower levels, where the civil servants are studying these special problems, the men who, indeed, are briefing the various secretaries before the conference.

These men have been subject, over the past 10 years, particularly over the past 5 years, to pressures which are new in American life and the tendency, I think, is quite marked for those men to feel that if they get involved in a conference of a new kind, it is always possible that they will be subpenaed and brought up here, if the executive branch of the Government wants them to come, and if they get into controversies, there is a tendency for them to feel that this will affect their career and certainly it has been my experience in the past 2 or 3 years that the free exchange of information, between the responsible reporter and the responsible official of the Federal Government, has seriously declined.

Now, a third point I would like to make, and that is about the machinery by which the news is put out in this town. There is, in my judgment for what it is worth, a fatal flaw in this machinery and that is this: It works fairly well when things are quiescent, when there is not any great crisis. It is possible, no doubt, to get the background of the events which have happened. But news, by its very definition, is obviously news of the conflict, news of the crisis, and the time when it is most necessary to report it is at the moment of the crisis.

Now the difficulty is at least that has been my experience-that at the moment of crisis the only people who have access to the facts of the crisis are working on the crisis itself. So that the reporter is confronted with this dilemma: That the people who are informed are not available to him and the people who are available to him are not informed. That is the dilemma that we are constantly running up against.

It is true, and I think there are honest efforts made by the executive branch of the Government later on to give us this information, if we probe hard enough for it. But in a society like ours, it seems to me, where everybody is so busy, if the press is going to play its proper role, it has to report the facts and get at the root of the matter while the country is paying attention, and the country tends to pay attention, I think, at the moment of the crisis. And, therefore, this dilemma of only being able to get at people who do not have the facts, causes—I think-not only causes us a great deal of inconvenience, but does an injustice to the people of the country.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just one or two other things, or suggestions that might throw some light on some of your inquiries.

It is true that the Government now has new problems. For example, when I first came to this town Mr. Hull would have press confer