THE RIGHT TO KNOW

TOvVARD WORLD PRESS FREEDOM

by KENT COOPER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A year ago Mr. Cooper wrote for FREE WORLD an article entitled Free News: First Step in Peace." His article was the opening gun of an immense campaign all over the world lor the freedom of the press which culminated in a tour of American newspaper repr,esentatives to the various United Nations in order to further the cause of this vital freedom. We are happy to have started this campaign, and w,e present today Mr. Cooper's newest contribution.

IT is significant that world-wide freedom of the press has been described as one specific American war aim which has been "explicitly approved by the highest political bodies in our land and which has been disapproved of by nobody" in America. In an article written for FREE WoRLD just a year ago, I turned the light-as I had first done two years previously-on the dark record of how war makers used controlled news to instill mass hatreds, then to plunge hateblinded peoples into the frenzy of war. And I outlined initial progress made toward the recognition that there can be no hope of durable peace unless all potential aggressors are disarmed of this essential war-making weapon. Without permitting ourselves to become over-optimistic, and without ignoring how faraway may be the ultimate goal, it is important to refllect upon how this ideal has taken hold in America and other freedom-loving lands. In the past year alone, the principle of worldwide news freedom has been endorsed by a unanimous joint resolution of Congress. The President of the United States and spokesmen for several foreign governments have supported it. There have been hundreds of ringing editorials in the press of several countries, and magazine articles have appeared in many languages. In America, many State legislatures and other bodies have favored it. The Inter-American Conference at Mexico City in March resolved that the American Republics "will do everything possible" to guarantee world freedom of information. \<\Then the United Nations Organization took form in SEPTEMBER, 1945

San Francisco in June, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., then Secretary of State, said that as soon as the Organization's Commission for the Promotion of Human Rights is established: "We may be sure, I think, that . . . the United States Government will urge that it should promptly study the means of promoting freedom of the press, freedom of communication, and fuller flow of knowledge and of information between all peoples." During the early months of this year, a committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors traveled 40,000 miles around the world and discussed this great objective with government officials and editors of eleven countries. They reported that so far as officials were concerned, there was dissent in "but few cases," while editors received the proposals enthusiastically, proving "beyond any doubt that the spark of press freedom is alight" in the world. It is a most hopeful augury that in the Soviet Union, where the definition of "press freedom" is divergent from ours, the subject is being written about and discussed. At least one well-known Russian newspaperman wrote recently that Russia's critical attitude toward our press does not mean that agreement "on purely practical problems is impossible for improving information and mutual communication between the Soviet and the American or any other press." There are other indications that could be described to show the accelerating development of interest in the subject, with unusual reactions in a comparatively short time. There has been, for instance, a relaxing of government

53

censorship in some countries where government control of the news has been in effect for many years. News channels are being freely opened in other countries burdened by highly restrictive arrangements before the war. I do not recall any similar movement that has developed so rapidly with such far-reaching and significant results in such a brief period. Certainly, there is no record of anything like it, where as in this, there was no organized nor financially supported effort. What is it then, that has brought it about? It is a conviction upon the part of large numbers of people that as a basic and necessary foundation toward international understandin()' 0 and peace, there must be established everywhere the principle which I have defined as "the right to know." It is a recognition that unless this tight is made secure, none of the fundamental human rights which comprise freedom can be safe. Since this idea of freedom of the press being universally adopted is distinctly American in its origin, it is important to make clear what we mean by press freedom. But first, by pointing to the American origin of the idea, let me make clear that I do not minimize the profoundly important contributions from other lands to this essential ingredient of human freedom. The struggle for freedom to print goes back centuries in Great Britain. Active adherence to the present movement by that greatest of international _news agencies, Reuters, and its owners since 1941, the British press, is one of its strongest bulwarks. In America, there is a misconception that the Constitution of the United States grants newspaper owners special rights and privileges. It does no such thing. Newspapers are not even mentioned in the Constitution. A free press or the right to print comes about because the first amendment of the Constitution, among other things, says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of . . . the press. . . . " This meant that there would be no abridgment of the right to print, whether what is printed is a book, a pamphlet, a newspaper, or whatnot. Let me emphasize the importance of the printed word because the printed word becomes the historic record. History is based upon the record which is prepared for the eye. There is also the medium of oral communication. But history will not be based upon the unwritten word which reaches the brain through the ear. It will be based upon what reaches the brain through the eye. In this respect, the impor54

tance of communication of thought and ideas by radio fades by comparison. The right to print-freedom of the press-supersedes in importance all other means of communication of facts to the mind. Now we in America believe that this constitutional stipulation that Congress may enact no law abridging the right to print, establishes a freedom that is an essential part of the well being of every individual. We believe that the fact that there can be no law to prohibit the right to print has contributed to making our country a vital and powerful democracy. We know, then, that freedom of the press is not a baronial right of the owners of newspapers. \'Ve know that it is a guarantee of human liberty. It is a right of all the people. Referring specifically to the newspaper press, we have seen, through the years, an unusual growth with a widening scope of responsibility, in this and certain other lands where the press has been the freest from government restriction or control and from political or private subsidy. These achievements have occllrred primarily where the press has learned to maintain itself in complete independence through advertising and subscription rates. It is significant that where the newspaper press has ad1ieved this full stature of independence, the- principles of full and unbiased reporting, of presenting the facts both pleasant and unpleasant, favorable and unfavorable, have made greatest progress. This concept of newspaper responsibility was admirably expressed by the London Times, in its recent 50,000th issue. It defined the duty of a newspaper: "To hold fast to the distinction between fact and opinion and, whatever views it may hold and express, to furnish for the readers' judgment a supply of news as full and impartial as energy and good faith can make it." In an earlier era of newspaper publishing, in America as elsewhere, most newspapers were organs of particular political or economic groups devoted primarily to the presentation of a specific point of view. They were devoted to special pleading. Those were the days, not of newspapering as we understand it today, but of pamphleteering. Only that rare reader who had the time and opportunity to read a very wide assortment of publications could hope for balanced information. In the extreme stress, the emotionalism and impatience of these bitter years of war, it has been all too easy to lose sight of the magnificent achievements in promotion of human under standing, of social welfare and progress, and FREE WORLD

of freedom in democracy, made through the day-to-d;ay enlightenment of a free press. In lands such as our own, there is danger that we become so accustomed to this freedom that we may hold it too cheaply. Many become impatient with a freedom which means freedom to criticize, freedom to present unpleasant facts and unpopular viewpoints. In lands which have never known freedom of the press as we know it, groups in power are unaccustomed to freely expressed opposition, and find many reasons to avoid adoption of principles which permit :[t. In some quarters it has become popular to view with alarm the fact that a newspaper publishing venture requires considerable financial capital. Russian critics of the American form of press freedom make much of the private capital involved. But what is important in a free society is the kind of press that owes its continuing existence to the patronage of its readers who thus make it free and independent. A newspaper is not free without financial independence. ~Whether a newspaper is owned by an individual, by a group, by its employees, cooperatively, or however, is unimportant, so long as it is free. In a free society, there is nothing to prevent any of these forms of ownership, and in fact all have been tried. Perfection cannot be claimed for any human institution. There has been no stifling of criticism of the press in America. We have.observed its shortcomings and have judged them as such, placing them on the debit side of the ledger. With the full picture of what we have in the way of a newspaper press, we should, without apology, hope that our kind of press freedom may be guaranteed to the peoples of all nations. I am not one who would curb our hopes that full press freedom obtain everywhere. I do not start with the idea that such a hope may be impractical in this troubled world, that we want less than that, or that this is the time to talk of compromise. So when others use such phrases as "free flow of news" and "free access to news" I accept these as some of the things that go with press freedom. They are the details o the larger grant of the right to print. I am aware that an occasional voice has been raised to warn that this great American objective for world-wide press freedom is part of some .sort of imperialistic scheme to expand Amencan news activities over the globe. Nothing could be further from the facts. Achievement of real press freedom over the world

would assure that the press of no nation should be forced to receive all or any substantial portion of its world news through New York, or London, or Moscow, or Berlin, or any other place. The fear that there might be any such ulterior motive in this objective probably stems from inability to throw off the old and dangerous conception of news as something to be used as an instrument of national policy. The present American news agencies have from their beginnings been owned by newspapers or newspaper owners, and have never been subject to government dictation, beyond the military necessities of wartime, and even in wartime have freely reported news critical of the American government and its policies, when such news did not involve military security. First, world-wide freedom of press must carry with it, as an essential function, free exchange of news between the newspapers of the world. American newspapers should not, and do not, desire to take news out of a country without a return of news to that country. Nor should the newspapers of any country do so. Secondly, it requires an adequate and vastly expanded world communications system, with low, uniform and non-discriminatory rates. A world-wide free press costs nothing in money. lt does require enlightenment and education. vVith an adequate communications system, exchange of news would cost little. An adequate communications system would cost much, but not a fraction of one per cent of the cost of world armament. Within the grasp of this generation, for the first time in world history, lie the means to set in motion forces for the achievement of world acquaintance and understanding through orderly processes of exchange of facts and opinions, thus composing differences and making allowances for shortcomings. Democratic communities large and small have long lived peacefully through this process. So can the whole world. There will never be an end to differences of opinions, of philosophies, or objectives, and the Almighty be praised that this is true, because an end to these differences would mean an end to progress. But let us provide the means for permitting these differences to perform their constructive function of the enrichment of civilization, rather than to enclose them again in vast pressure areas which would certainly explode into another war from which our civilization might never recover.

SEPTEMBER, 1945

55