1964-Supervisory Editor, "The Torch is Passed." 1974-76-Executive vice president, deputy general manager, AP. 1976 on-AP general manager. RICHARD LEONARD May 23, 1921-Born, New York City. 1942-46-U.S. Army. 1947-B.A. University of Wisconsin. 1948-Picture editor, Milwaukee Journal. 1949-50-Madison Bureau, Milwaukee Journal. 1951-52--State Desk. 1953-62-State Editor. 1962-66-Managing Editor. 1965-President, Milwaukee Press Club. 1967-present-Editor, vice president, Milwaukee Journal Co. MIKE WALLACE May 9, 1918-Born in Brookline, Mass. 1939-Graduated University of Michigan, A.B. 1939-Began work in radio. 1946-Began work in TV. 1951-54-Commentator CBS-TV 1951 on-TV interviewer. 1958-Author "Mike Wallace Asks." 1963 on-CBS news correspondent. 1963-71-George Foster Peabody awards. 1971-Robert Sherwood award. 1972-Dupont Columbia journalism award, Boston Press Club Headliner award. 1973-ATVAS Emmy award. Currently anchorman on "60 Minutes." PHILIP L. GEYELIN February 27, 1923-Born Devon, Pa. 1940-Graduated Episcopal Academy, Overbrook, Pa. 1944-B.A. Yale University. 1946-47-Associated Press. 1947-66-Wall Street Journal. 1960-67-Diplomatic Correspondent, Wall Street Journal. 1964-present-Board of Trustees, Alliance Francaise. 1966-Published "Lyndon B. Johnson and the World." 1967-Fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard School of Government. [The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. LEONARD BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE MAY 4, 1978 I appear here this morning as the Editor of the Milwaukee Journal, a newspaper which sends ten or more journalists overseas each year to seek information that will benefit our readers. I am also Chairman of the American Committee of the International Press Institute and was Chairman of the conference which laid the foundation for the World Press Freedom Committee. I spent almost four years in the Army in World War II, serving in both the European and Pacific Theaters. Putting all this together, I find that I am a citizen who recognizes the need for comptetent CIA activity; an editor who wants his paper to carry reliable, firsthand information from abroad; and a leader of an international press organization that is seeking to win the trust of journalists in other parts of the world and to export the American concept of a free press unfettered by government control. The straight truth, and there is no way around it, is that any relationship with the CIA will either impair or destroy the credibility of a journalist if that relation ship is discovered. Further, the knowledge that the CIA has a relationship with any journalist, American or foreign, casts suspicion upon all journalists. In the last year representatives of the World Press Freedom Committee have been actively opposing a UNESCO resolution, supported by the Soviet Union, which could bring stronger government participation in the news flow to and from third world nations. Last year at Nairobi and last week in Stockholm, free world journalists told UNESCO that the flow of news must be free of government interference and that developing nations could have confidence in the integrity of the United States press and press agencies because they are free of government influence. What do we tell them if they learn that the CIA has press connections, whether they are American of foreign? Representatives of western nations expressed the fear in Stockholm that such revelations might result in excluding their foreign correspondents from developing nations. The final report of the UNESCO seminar included the comment: "There is a general agreement that the media should not engage in war propaganda or promote racism and apartheid, should not disseminate false information, and should be truthful, honest, unbiased, without political or special interest designs." Would CIA press connections be in keeping with these objectives? Of course not. In the recent election activity in the Philippines, President Marcos openly accused the foreign press and the U.S. Government of involvement in the protest march through Manila. The Soviet news agency Tass declared after the recent Cairo Confernece on International Mass Media that the western mass media were the "propaganda organs of the imperialist states, above all the U.S.A." (Tass itself has little credibility because it is goverment controlled.) Wild allegations? Of course. But not so easy to deny if there is knowledge of CIA press connections. And, wild or not, they could have an effect in developing nations. Sean Macbride, Chairman of the UNESCO International Commission for the Study of Communications Problems, recently called attention to "covert outside interference in communication processes" and urged "a high sense of moral and ethical responsibility in all those involved in the education and information of public opinion." George Reedy, former press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson, returned last month from a tour of Asia. In Korea, he reported, people wanted to know why the U.S. Government was attacking Korea through the press. He said it was inconceivable to the Koreans that an attack on Korea could appear in the paper without the approval of the government. This is the type of belief we are fighting throughout the world as we seek a freer flow of news. Let us look at the National Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act in the light of the above events. The policy of prohibiting paid relationships between the CIA and the U.S. media deserves praise, but we must go further: The CIA should also be prohibited from having paid relationships with foreign journalists. Failure to do so would make a mockery of our efforts to steer developing nations away from a press with strong government influence. Failure to do so could lead to expulsion of United States correspondents from foreign nations. Most certainly, CIA activity involving foreign newsmen would have a chilling effect on news sources overseas. Payment of expense money should be forbidden. It would have the same negative effect as payment for services. Journalists should be wary of all contacts with the CIA. Certainly, they should not swap information. Certainly briefings before travel to a foreign area should be done by a less sensitive agency. Nor should the CIA take the initiative in seeking information from a returning journalist. I believe it unwise for a newsman to participate in such a debriefing, but I don't think this is a matter for statutory control. Here we are dealing with a matter of individual conscience. I am not worried about the possibility that the CIA would tend to favor cooperating reporters at the expense of others. I don't think the nation's respected newsmen would cooperate with the CIA today. The only assistance that journalists should give the CIA is honest, accurate reporting in the public interest. Help in recruiting agents, providing safe houses and courier service should be given by members of less sensitive professions. Above all, the CIA should never use journalistic cover for its own officers anywhere. The adverse effect to our integrity would be enormous throughout the world. Loss of integrity means loss of our ability to communicate. Any statutory provisions on relations between the CIA and the media should be broad and cover news executives, editors, photographers and reporters. They should also cover freelancers who represent themselves as representatives of established publications. There should be concern about the flowback problem of stories planted in foreign publications by the CIA, but that concern should be far less than the fear of reaction to the discovery that the U.S. is tampering with the press of other nations. The opinions stated above are widely shared by my colleagues. However, I find differences of opinion on how control should be exercised. I believe that there should be statutes covering such specific areas as payment of money to media people and use of journalistic cover by CIA personnel. More general areas, such as planting of stories and dissemination of false information could be covered by executive order. With regard to secrecy, I believe that there should never be prior restraint in our nation. However, the CIA would be acting properly in attempting to convince the press of the importance of maintaining secrecy on an issue vital to the national security. I do not believe there will ever be, or should ever be a smooth working relationship between the CIA and the media. Journalists are assigned the mission of looking behind the scenes in government and telling the American public what is happening. Often this involves information that public officials do not want to have made public. Journalists have great confidence in the power of truth, openness and accuracy. This feeling was refected in a resolution adopted last Friday by the Board of Directors of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, at their meeting in St. Louis. The resolution said: "We now call on Congress and the President to state positively that the CIA will not employ foreign journalists. "We believe that such a declaration is essential to advise the world that the United States Government is not interfering with the free flow of accurate and objective information. "We believe that the need for the uncompromised truth is more essential to this nation and the world than any gain made from using journalists as agents of government." I think that says it all. STATEMENT OF RICHARD LEONARD, EDITOR, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Senator. You have a statement from me that is rather lengthy. I don't want to read it all, but I would like to read the more important parts, and I would like to start right out by saying the straight truth, and there is no way around it, is that any relationship with the CIA will either impair or destroy the credibility of a journalist if that relationship is discovered. Further, the knowledge that the CIA has a relationship with any journalist, American or foreign, is going to cast suspicion upon all journalists. Now, in the last year, representatives of the World Press Freedom Committee-and this is a committee that is comprised of 30 organizations, journalists on five continents-has been actively opposing a UNESCO resolution-the resolution is supported by the Soviet Union-which could bring stronger government participation in the news flow to and from Third World nations. Last year at Nairobi, and last week in Stockholm, the free world journalists told UNESCO that the flow of news must be free of government interference and that developing nations could have confidence in the integrity of the U.S. press and press agencies because they are free of government influence. We told that to the third world in attempting to get their support to oppose this UNESCO resolution. Now, what do we tell them if they learn that the CIA has press connections, whether they are American or foreign? This would hurt our purpose. George Reedy, former press secretary to President Johnson, returned last month from a tour of Asia. In Korea, he reported, the people wanted to know why the U.S. Government was attacking Korea through the press. He said it was inconceivable to the Koreans that an attack on Korea could appear in the U.S. papers without the approval of the Government. They are suspicious of this. This is the type of belief we are fighting throughout the world as we seek a freer flow of news. Any knowledge of Government participation defeats our purpose, which is to improve world communication and understanding that will lead to peace. Now, let's look at the National Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act, a good bill in many ways. I was much impressed by it. It puts intelligence activity on a statutory basis, has an excellent section on covert action and surveillance. Now, the policy of prohibiting paid relationships between the CIA and the U.S. media deserves praise, but here we must go further. The CIA should also be prohibited from having paid relationships with foreign journalists. Failure to do so would make a mockery of our efforts to steer developing nations away from a press with strong government influence. Failure to do so could lead to expulsion of U.S. correspondents from foreign nations. Most certainly, CIA activity involving foreign newsmen would have a chilling effect on news sources overseas, and I have seen this happen myself. I have seen our news sources behind the Iron Curtain dry up because the sources suspected U.S. reporters had Government connections. Journalists should be wary of all contacts with the CIA, and certainly they should not swap information. Certainly briefings before travel to a foreign area should be done by a less sensitive agency. Nor should the CIA take the initiative in seeking information from a returning journalist. I believe it unwise for a newsman to participate in a debriefing by the CIA, but I don't think this is a matter for statutory control. Here we are dealing with a matter of individual conscience and journalism ethics-not law, ethics. I think that the bill draws a good line, a good line between paid and voluntary activity. Journalists don't want the Government telling them what to do, and they also don't want to be told what they should not do. If a journalist wants to have a voluntary relationship, I would say that is a matter for his own conscience and I would support that. And above all, the CIA should never use journalistic cover for its own officers anywhere. The adverse effect to our integrity would be enormous throughout the world. Loss of integrity means loss of our ability to communicate. When Tass, the Soviet agency, makes a statement, hardly anyone in the world believes it today because they know that there is government participation in Tass, that is, government control. We don't want that to happen to our free world news agencies. Journalists have a great confidence in the power of truth, openness and accuracy, and this feeling was reflected in a resolution that was adopted last Friday by the board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, at their meet ing in St. Louis. This organization, by the way, represents 27,000 active, working journalists in the country. I would like to read the resolution. It is brief. We now call on Congress and the President to state positively that the CIA will not employ foreign journalists. We believe that such a declaration is essential to advise the world that the United States Government is not interfering with the free flow of accurate and objective information. We believe that the need for the uncompromised truth is more essential to this Nation and the world than any gain made from using journalists as agents of government. That is the end of the resolution. I would like to respectfully urge that the words "or foreign" and "or abroad" be added at the appropriate places in section 132 of the bill, pages 51, 52, and 53. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Mr. Geyelin? STATEMENT OF PHILIP L. GEYELIN, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, WASHINGTON POST, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS Mr. GEYELIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather long statement. I don't know whether you want me to read it all, but I will start, and you can stop me when you want to. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Proceed as you see fit. Senator HUDDLESTON. Sure, read it all. Mr. GEYELIN. I am here in response to your invitation to the American Society of Newspaper Editors to delegate a member of the society to testify on S. 2525, or that part of it that deals with the CIA and the media, and I would like to clarify my credentials. Not being a member of the board of the ASNE, I cannot speak for it. Still less can I speak for its full membership. And I am not here either as a spokesman for the Washington Post or its editorial page, which speaks for itself. My views are those of an ASNE member and a newspaperman who has worked as both an editor and a reporter and as a foreign correspondent overseas. Finally, I should note that 28 years ago at the time of the Korean War, I also worked for 1 year on a leave of absence from my newspaper, which was then the Wall Street Journal, for the CIA here in Washington. I have had no connection with the CIA since then, other than that of a reporter dealing with news sources. But that experience has obviously had some influence on my thinking about the Agency and its relation with the media. I think there are two separate ways to approach this problem. We could approach it as if we were writing on a clean slate, as a matter of pure principle-and editorial writers like to deal in pure principle—and the other way would be to approach it as a practical matter in the light all the abuses and excesses and conflicts of interest that have been brought to public attention in recent years. A powerful case has been made that the press has been seriously compromised, even subverted, that it has been so weakened in the eyes of the world at the hands of a hyperactive and insensitive CIA that it now requires some sort of good houskeeping seal of approval, something, some kind of strict, statutory regulations guiding the press/CIA relations for the future. |