Evening star., 1960-03-04
Base. servile.. .venal...
polluted the foundations of society,".
the most ignorant, mercenary, and yulg
autOmatOns that ever we're moved
by the continually rusting wires
of sOrdid mercantile ayarice. ="

material and leave the alone What sort of arbi-
trary defniton-and whose?-is to determine what is
international, what is cultural and what is enter
tanning? Last night the CIRCLE THEATRE presented
adramatc exposition of the city of Pittsburghs note
worthy method of dealing with juvenile delinquency.
Was this primarily entertainment? Was it sociology?
Or it news? Not only would such distinctions be
impossbly difficult they very apt to be contradc-
tory in some cases and almost wholly overlapping in
others.
No thoughtful observer wants to restrict the appli-
cation of the tenets of free press to what agency
in Washington defines as news. If the principle once
established that the has the right to super
wise everything else in communications or expression
don't think it would make any difference whether we
got what was cncaly tested as news or not To have
freedom merely to report events in your own way to
cover those you want TO- and to omit Others to edit
essential such freedom isis only the beginning of
free press For isolated events are merely fragments
of experience rejecting the national character The
formative powers rooted deep in other areas of
presson-a fact that Professor William Ernest Hook
ing established in fine and perceptive phrasing in his
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A FRAMEWORK OF PRINCIPLE:
"Neither the value nor the duty of expression is r-
tied to its more puposeuI aspects Speech and press
may be trivial casual, emotional amusing i,,agina-
the, speculative sOhimsical foolish; all utteromce
SERVES social end-to report to elIo-beings mutual
presence and interest," the play of mood, the Uagares
Of taste, the groupings for principle the barometric
ur of belief and disbelief hope and fear, Iove and
hate, and thus to shape attitudes there is COM
mon duty to protect the whole range of this freedom,
as right of social eristence."
Advocates of government control of teevision pro-
gramming have also spoken in such gentle terms as
guidelines. We ought not to be misled by these.
would be as repelled by newspaper guided by gov
ernment controlled by it. If the guidance has
no element of force in it, it would have no sgnif-
cance II it does have force, it is merely euphemism
for government control. There is no such thing as
little government control Any control at all is
repugnan to all our values and damper on creatv-
ity and the stimulation of freely competing express
sion A society that sees one more Indian bite the
dust television is far safer than society that
sees iota of its freedom of expression given up
to its government
am familiar with the hypothesis that we could
evolve some kind of responsible commission made up
of eminent atruistic citizens appointed by the gov
ernment to review and report television periodi
cally But unless they had punitive powers what
would it mean? Televison is already reviewed regu-
larly by some of the most articulate people in the
American press. Great and powerful publications
moreover, frequently edtoralize on what we have
done that we ought not to have done and what we
have left undone that we ought to have done. They
examine not only the substance of our programming
but also our policies, our trends, our economics our
personnel and even our private deliberations. There
is nothing left for commission to review.
A AMISCHIEVOUS DOCTRINE
Suppose, on the other hand the hypothetical COM
mission is given real teeth to enforce its standards
Then we are in the dilemma that dependence on
benevolent despots always involves. There is no way
to tell whether they will remain benevolent or
whether their successors will be benevolent at ALL
Walter Lippmann spelled this out very plainly in
THE GOOD SOCIETY," in his discussion of the flaw in
planning social improvements:
Not only is it impossible for the people to control
the pla but Ohat is more the planners must control
the people. By kind of tragic irony the search
for security and rational society," If 1t seeks sGlvd
ton through political authority, ends in the most
irrational form of government imaginable in the
dictatorship of casual ohgdrchs . The reformers
aOho are stalking their hopes ON good despotS because
they so eager to plan the FUTURE Leave unpldnmed
that (which all their hopes depend:. selection
of the despots Who are to make society so rational
and so secure has to be left to the insecurity of ira
tional chance"
This whole theory of benevolent censorship anti
cipatory or by way Of review is mischievous doc