Evening star., 1944-02-22
BY PALMER HOYT,

and public? The biggest thing, of
course, is for Elmer Davis, director
Of OWL. and George W. Healy, jr.,
domestic director, to- be taken into
the full confidence of the President
and the high command.
In too many instances these men
are uninformed as to developments
OF the news of the day and thus
powerless to fulfill their functions
as your advocates-you of press and
pa,.lic-to see that you get all pos
sible news all the time while it Is
still news. :
am positive, for instance, that
had the Army laid the facts of the
Patton case before Mr. Davis or
myself, the unhappy effects of this
near tragedy to American morale
might have been averted. The bot
tling of this incident for many
weeks insured it's becoming BAN
ner-line scandal story and the prin-
cipal war news topic for too long.
Antidote Obvious.
The antidote to this poisonous
incident should be clear to any eX-
perienced news executive: Tell the
simple facts candidly and promptly.
This story. in my opinion, should
have been released to the American
public at the time Gen. Eisenhower
took speedy cognizance of the affair
and sternly, if "unofficially." repri-
manded Gen. Patton, and the gen.
eral, going beyond the Eisenhower
directive, apologized both to the
soldier and to his entire division.
If this had been done, our people
would have been reassured, before
the report had been distorted by
emotionalism, that the command
was ready to deal promptly and
effectively with its own mistakes,
even when the rights of a private
were involved.
Davis Took Beating.
Mr.. Davis took an awful beating
from the American press over the
Cairo leak in which vital news
of the Roosevelt Churchill Chang
Kai-shek conference came out of
Lisbon via the Reuters news service
The real blame. of course, lay with
British censorship, which passed the
item.
The first leak came in United
Press story out of Cairo, also passed
by British censorship, which told
of certain villas in Cairo being made
ready for distinguished guests. That
was enough and the Reuters leak
thus became more or less incidental
Further bungling in connection
with both the Cairo and Teheran
conference brought an important
order from the President that in
future no stories with security values
could be held for advance release
This will be helpful, but even greater
insurance would be brought about
through a more clear-cut under
standing with British censorship
and the President letting his num-
Der one information man. Elmer
Davis. handle the arrangements
not after the horse is stolen, but
while it is still munching its oats.
MI. Davis can't do the job unless
he is brought into the inner counsels
Of the President and the high COM
mand itself.
British Setup Cited.
The superiority of the British "Of-
fee of War Information" often is
cited as an evidence of Davis failure,
but Brenden Bracken, always In
the full and complete confidence of
MI. Churchill, is well aware of all
the news of military and civil events
and can virtually release any story
that he chooses over the heads of
the military.
Several things should be clearly
by public and press.
Owl is in no sense an office of CEN
nor does it ever pretend to
assume that function.
Owl cannot and should not orig
mate news In the past, it was too
long a custom for certain Govern
ment officials to insist that Owl
get this across" or get that across"
without themselves assuming the
responsibility for the idea and the
news supporting it. That is wrong
And presently the domestic branch
does not function in that manner.
owl Defended.
In the final analysis. Owl is the
advocate of the right of the people
to know the news through their
and it seems to me the
ought to back this con-
cept of Owl. 1t is the one protec-
ton of press and public against the
withholding of news and the manip-
ulation of news
Why is there such a divergence
between the viewpoints of public
and press on war news on one side
and the military on the other?
1t will help you to understand
why, if you examine the tradition of
armies and navies. These services
were private enterprises,
conducted by professional leaders for
profit. Their stock in trade was
loyalty, honor physical strength and
skill at arms, courage and willing
ness. if need be, to die in battle.
Armies and navies were employed by
rulers to defend their holdings.
Professional fighting men, as men in
occupa tions so often do,
looked with mild contempt upon
peaceful civilians, whom they con-
sidered so many fat burghers and
Soldiers and sailors
lived apart from common folk.
Their forts and their ships were
sacrosanct. They were hired to de-
fend civilians, and they did, but
civilians were required to keep out.
independence Is Paramount.
While do not mean to imply that
our brave and competent profess
sional military and naval leaders to-
day are hirelings, some of them do
feel, as they always have, that they
and their forts, guns, ships and men
are outside the public domain. They
look upon a democracy unconsciously
as a kind of government they are
delegated to defend, not as dynam-
ic system of which they are part.
The Army and Navy are not demo-
cratic institutions in the parlia-