Evening star., 1953-04-30
Mccarthy and the Press

senator McCarCny mas Deen accused py
James A. Wechsler, editor of the New York
Post, of "a fragrant invasion of the area of
press freedom" The precise meaning of the
"area of press freedom" is not clear, and, in
any event. the merits of Mr.. WechSler's COM
plant cannot be appraised until the record of
his closed-door session with Senator McCarthy's
committee is made public. The sooner this is
DONE the better.
Meanwhile, few observations on the gen.
eral question of press freedom may be pertinent.
The first amendment forbids Congress to
make any law abridging the freedom of the
press. It hardly follows, however, that this
guarantee of a free press confers any special
immunity from investigation on an editor. If
a congressional committee has right to expose
the fact that union official or teacher, for
instance, is Communist or former Commu-
nist it certainly has the same right with respect
to an editor. And the press should be the last
to contend that the fact of Communist af1lia--
ton within its family may be concealed from
the public by invoking the first amendment.
Mr. Wechsler, formerly member of the
Young Communist League and in recent years
a militant nti-CommuniSt, has not made any
such contention. The essence of his complaint
appears to be that Senator Mccarthy under
the guse Of conducting legitimate inveStiga-
ton, has actually been trying to harass and
intimidate him and his paper. If Mr.. Wechsler
is correct then Senator Mccarthy is engaged
in reprehensible piece of business. It still
would not necessarily follow, however that
there has been an invasion of the freedom
of the press within the proper meaning of that
term.
Witnesses we're being bulldoZed and intimi-
dated by investigating committees before either
Mr. yHo o6c1or hoFSo rfIx ho.,a
This fact does not convert an evil practice into
a good practice. But it does put the Wechsler-
Mccarthy affair in some perspective.
Nor is Senator Mccarthy, assuming the
fact the sole offender in the matter of trying
to coerce and intimidate newspapers. At one
time or another the same thing has been
attempted by every pressure group and every
special interest in our history.
It is the duty of newspaper editors to stand
up to these aggressions, and on the whole they
have acquitted themselves rather well. The
same thing can be done with respect to Senator
Mccarthy. He cannot intimidate an editor
who, like Mr.. Wechsler, refuses to be intimi-
dated. And any editor who would let himself
be intimidated by the Senator ought to find
some other means of earning his livelihood
The Star is not to be listed among the
admirers of Senator Mccarthy and his methods.
In fairness, however, it must be conceded that
much Of the press has been uninhibited and
unrestrained in its attacks on the Wisconsin
Senator-attacks which presumably are de-
signed to expose the Senator's shoddy methods
and pressure him into changing them. II he
attempts to retaliate by badgering editors, the
editors should be hardy enough to fight and
win their battle-and to win it without invoking
a claim of immunity. To seek shelter in any
cry of freedom of the press would merely serve
by implication to credit the Senator with
measure of power which he does not possess.