FROM THE END OF THE WAR THROUGH THE MID-60'S THE NATIONAL CONSENSUS UNDERLYING OUR FOREIGN POLICY LED MANY IN THE PRESS TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT GOVERNMENT WAS SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE. TODAY NO SUCH CONSENSUS EXISTS. THE PRESS AND THOSE WHO GOVERN HAVE GROWN APART, AND GOVERNMENT IS THOUGHT BY MANY TO BE GUILTY UNLESS IT CAN PROVE ITSELF INNOCENT.

ONE MUST INEVITABLY WONDER ABOUT THE FUTURE STATE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESS. IN DISCUSSING THAT QUESTION WITH YOU TODAY -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE -- I MUST EMPHASIZE THAT I MAKE NO CLAIM THAT I HAVE THE ANSWER. I WILL CONFINE MYSELF TO STATING SOME ISSUES THAT CONCERN ME.

FIRST, SKEPTICISM AND SCRUTINY OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND PUBLIC MEN ARE CLEARLY THE BUSINESS OF THE PRESS. WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS THE TREMENDOUS STRENGTH

-2-

THAT A FREE PRESS BRINGS TO OUR SOCIETY. BUT, AS WITH
GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER PROFESSION, IS IT NOT POSSIBLE
THAT THE SKILLS SO USEFUL IN DEALING WITH EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY PROVE LESS CREATIVE -- LESS USEFUL --
WHEN APPLIED TO MORE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES?

WE HAVE PASSED THROUGH A DESTRUCTIVE AND DIVISIVE WAR,
AND THROUGH THIS NATION'S GREATEST CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. JUST AS ARMIES ARE DEMOBILIZED WHEN
A WAR IS WON, IS IT NOT NOW TIME TO ASK WHETHER WE CAN
DEMOBILIZE SOME OF THE ATTITUTDES, ASSUMPTIONS, AND
TECHNIQUES THAT PROVED SO INDISPENSABLE DURING VIETNAM AND
WATERGATE? HAVE WE PERHAPS FALLEN INTO THE MALAISE OF RETIRED
GENERALS, ENDLESSLY RE-FIGHTING THE BATTLES OF WARS LONG PAST --
BATTLES WHOSE LESSONS MAY ILL PREPARE US FOR FUTURE CONFLICTS?

SECOND, THE GOVERNMENT, NO LESS THAN THE PRESS, MUST
SHARE A PROFOUND ATTACHMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FOR
THE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED THEREIN HAVE SET OUR NATION APART FROM
ANY OTHER IN THE PAST OR CURRENT HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
AND WHEN GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO RETREAT FROM THAT COMMITMENT,

-3-

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESS TO REMIND IT OF
ITS DUTY.

BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT ENDLESS
SCRUTINY -- WITHOUT SOME MINIMAL ELEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING --
CAN LEAD TO A MASSIVE UNDERMINING OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
IN THE VERY INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. SKEPTICISM IS
HEALTHY, AND CONDEMNATION OFTEN DESERVED, BUT NO FREE
NATION CAN LONG EXIST IF ITS PEOPLE LACK FAITH IN ITS
ESSENTIAL JUSTICE. AND IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD ONE CANNOT
DEMAND PERFECTION AS THE PRICE OF CONFIDENCE, AND INSIST
ON ONE'S DISILLUSIONMENT IN THE FACE OF INEVITABLE AMBIGUITY.
FOR THIS IS THE ROAD TO NATIONAL ABDICATION.

I DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE PRESS CAN OR SHOULD CREATE
FAITH IN GOVERNMENT WHERE THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT FAITH.
BUT I BELIEVE WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT DECISIONS OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, IN THE REAL WORLD, ARE OFTEN MADE IN CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE FACTS AT HAND ARE AMBIGUOUS -- THE PROS AND CONS

-4-

FREQUENTLY EVENLY BALANCED. UNLESS THERE IS, AT SOME LEVEL
IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE, SOME MINIMAL DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING --
YES, AND COMPASSION -- OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE ISSUES
AND OF THE UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT PROJECTING THE FUTURE IN
DECISION MAKING, WE RISK BRINGING TO LIFE CARDINAL RICHELIEU'S
DICTUM: "GIVE ME SIX LINES WRITTEN BY AN HONEST MAN, AND I
WILL FIND SOMETHING IN IT WITH WHICH TO HANG HIM."

THIRD, I DO NOT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT A NEWSMAN SHOULD
DO WHEN A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL PRESENTS HIM WITH A CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENT, EVEN IF HE KNOWS THE MOTIVES OF HIS SOURCE TO BE
SELF-SERVING. THE REAL CULPRIT, IF THERE IS ONE, IS THE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WHO, HAVING TAKEN AN OATH OF OFFICE, THEN
VIOLATES THAT OATH -- NO MATTER WHAT HIS MOTIVES -- BY
LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. THE PERSON TO WHOM THAT INFOR-
MATION IS PASSED, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS TAKEN NO SUCH OATH.

IN FACT, HIS PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS RUN IN QUITE THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION; HIS DUTY IS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC, TO TELL

-5-

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT IS GOING ON. BUT LET US NOT,
WHILE LIONIZING THE PRESS FOR DOING ITS DUTY, FORGET THAT
USUALLY THE SOURCE HAS FAILED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS.

FOUTH, THE TREND TOWARD THE MAKING OF NEWS BY LEAK
CAN HAVE SOME PECULIAR AND MISLEADING CONSEQUENCES. OVER
A YEAR AGO I GAVE A SPEECH IN SAN FRANCISCO. IT WAS A
MAJOR ATTEMPT TO LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS
FOR OUR POLICY TOWARD THE SOVIET UNION. THE SPEECH WAS THE
PRODUCT OF CAREFUL ANALYSIS, AND WAS INTENDED TO BE THE
DEFINITIVE PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION
ON THE ISSUE. PROBABLY BECAUSE IT WAS UNCLASSIFIED, IT
ATTRACTED ONLY MODERATE ATTENTION.

I HAD NO PARTICULAR REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
OVERSIGHT UNTIL THE FUROR THAT FOLLOWED THE LEAKS ABOUT HAL
SONNENFELDT'S INFORMAL AND OFF-THE-CUFF REMARKS TO A CHIEFS
OF MISSION MEETING IN LONDON ON THE SAME SUBJECT. PRESUMABLY
BECAUSE OF THE FASCINATION THAT SEEMS TO DERIVE FROM DEALING