The President and the Press: Address before the American
Newspaper Publishers Association President John F. Kennedy Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961
Mr. 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 Information to govern
the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new
types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I
have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the
members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to
reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of
the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger
imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All
I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national
security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and
public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors,
and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption
of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate
whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the
dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of
peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both
painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows
no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your
second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to
inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the
facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects,
the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny
comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition.
And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the
Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing
and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response
and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This
Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once
said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We
intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point
them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can
succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon
decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why
our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America
specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and
entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give
the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our
dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead,
mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no
longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater
attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved
transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet
its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the
narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three
recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the
printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass
have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming
the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together,
the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the
terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper
of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and
assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be:
free and independent.
Hear
the speech
