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.
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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
