This speech is copied as much as possible from President John F. Kennedy’s speech “The President and the Press” given before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961 [1].
JFK's original speech has to be understood in the perspective of President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell address January 17, 1961 and ten days after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion April 17, 1961 because of the CIA. But also in the perspective of President F.D. Roosevelt's speech "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies" April 29, 1938 who stated :
"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.Both lessons hit home.Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
My modified version has to be understood following Edward Snowden's and all others whistleblowers' revelations. The inner politics behind what is revealing nowadays has been summarized in a previous political anticipation.
All the differences (instrikeout text) or additions (in italics) made by me to the original text are clearly indicated inline.
All the differences (in
__________________
Mr.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I
appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You
bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago
reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear
upon your profession.
You may
remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and
publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure
journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are
told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and
undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana
for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which
he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois
cheating."
But
when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means
of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the
Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the
world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only
this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx
had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I
hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a
poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an
obscure newspaper man.
I
have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the
Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded
"The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments
tonight.
It is
true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded
recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his
colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not
responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was
not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless,
my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called
one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely
heard many complaints about political
bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose
tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences.
I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit
in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the
intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington
correspondents.
Nor,
finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy
which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in
the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been
attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
My
topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want
to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The
events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some;
but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many
years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or
living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its
challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in
unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This
deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both
to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost
contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to
meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public
information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The
very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we
are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to
secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of
excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the
dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in
opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.
Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our
traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an
announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to
expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no
official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or
military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the
news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press
and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I
do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to
reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's
peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in
an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures
to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have
held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the
public's need for national security.
Today
no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never
be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those
who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of
our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have
been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the
press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of
combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat
to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present
danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and
its presence has never been more imminent.
It
requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the
government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every
newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless
conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of
influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night
instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and
material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific
and political operations.
Its
preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not
headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed except by whistleblowers. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with
a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless,
every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and
the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed
if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the
facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of
acquiring through our newspapers technical
systems information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through
theft, bribery or espionage;
that details of this nation's
covert preparations to counter the so-called enemy's covert operations have been
available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the
strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans
and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other
news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in
at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism
whereby satellites countries were followed spied required its alteration and control at the expense of
considerable time and money.
The
newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and
well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not
have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized
only the tests of national security journalism
and not the tests of national security citizenship. And my question tonight is whether additional tests
should not now be adopted.
The
question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for
you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I
would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the
responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those
responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge
its thoughtful consideration.
On many
earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that
these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and
self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and
comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that
those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt
from that appeal.
I have
no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow
of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of
security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have
posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the
members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to
reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of
the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger
imposes upon us all.
Every
newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?"
All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is
it in the interest of the citizens' freedom in this nation?” after asking "Is
it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group
in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will
ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same
exacting tests.
And
should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of
specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate
whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps
there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma
faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace,
any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful
and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no
precedent in history.
II
It is the
unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform
and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts
that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the
purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No
President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny
comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition.
And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the
Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing
and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the
response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not
only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This
Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once
said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct
it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect
you to point them out when we miss them.
Without
debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no
republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a
crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was
protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically
protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to
emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public
what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers
and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold,
educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This
means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer
far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to
improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it
means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to
provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits
of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was
early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent
inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the
printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass
have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming
the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together,
the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the
terrible consequences of failure.
And so
it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his
conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance,
confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and
independent.
[1] source: JFKLibrary
