Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-01-08
Still a Free Press

Now that Senator EaStlandS subcom-
mittee has completed the latest phase
OF its investigation of Communist "pene-
tration" of the press, it may be worth
while to examine the rather meager re-
suits Of that inquiry. These are both
positive and negative in nature.
One thing stands out. in the latter
category. There Is not particle Of evi-
dence, and the committee does not con-
tend, that Communists had the slightest
success in corrupting the news columns
or influencing the editorial policies of
any Of the papers involved.
Spokesman for the committee say
that the investigation has revealed
significant" effort on the part of Com
munists to penetrate leading American
newspapers. This comes down to
matter of definition, to what one means
by Significant" Obviously an effort was
made. But in our view, on the evidence
produced, there was only an inconse-
quential effort which achieved little sue
cess-surprisingly little considering how
important the objective must have
seemed to the Communists.
question has been raised as to
whether newSpapermen who left the
party many years ago and who had no
new information to contribute should
have been required to testify publicly.
There Is room here for honest difference
Of opinion. Clayton Knowles, Of the New
York Times, who left the party nearly
20 years ago after brief membership,
was one witness in this category. He
testified freely. but protested that he was
being embarrassed to no useful end. His
colleague, Benjamin Fine, who withdrew
In 1885 after one year as a casual Com
munist, said that he appreciated "the
opportunity Of being here" He did not
elaborate. 1t may be, however, that
public disclosure of his own mistake by
such respected journalist as Dr.. Fine
can serve as a useful object lesson to
youngsters Of this generation who might
be taken in by the Communist line. It
may also be that 1t Is better for Dr. Fine,
whose hands are clean, to testify in pub
lie. Everyone now knows that his Com
lnunist association amounted TO nothing.
But If he had testified only at a closed
session, the inevitable rumors and gossip
might have seriously damaged his repu-
tation.
There Is one other result which be-
longs on the positive side. 1t Is clear that
the Communist backgrounds of most of
the witnesses in this hearing, including
those who have been discharged, were
unknown to their newspaper employers
until after the committee began It's in
quiry. An employer ought to have this
information. And 1t is difficult to think
OF any persuasive reason why he should
not have 1t under circumstances which
require the individual to testify, or refuse
to testify, while under oath.
There remains a question as to
whether the newspapers in question have
been coerced by the committee, whether
their freedom to publish as they see at
has been abridged, whether they have
been discredited in the public eye.
We do not believe that any of these
things has happened. Take the case of
the New York Times, me principal paper
involved in the inquiry. 1t began to take
such corrective action with respect to its
employees as 1t saw fit prior to the public
hearing. 1t will continue to exercise It's
own managerial judgment in this matter
without regard to the views or opinions
Of the committee. Finally, 1t will con-
tinue to be one of the worlds finest, most
reliable and most highly respected news
papers-an appraisal which we are conf
dent will be fully shared by its readers.