Freedom of the press: The First Amendment protections (1975) – with Antonin Scalia | ARCHIVES
Articles,  Blog

Freedom of the press: The First Amendment protections (1975) – with Antonin Scalia | ARCHIVES

Announcer: From the nation’s capital, the American
Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research presents “Public Policy Forums”, a series
of programs featuring the nation’s top authorities, presenting their differing views on the vital
issues which confront us. The topic, “Freedom of the Press: The First
Amendment Protections.” Should reporters be forced by the courts to
reveal confidential sources of information? To what extent should the First Amendment
protect the press from libel suits by private citizens? Now, here is Peter Hackes. Peter Hackes: In this bicentennial era as we
reexamine some of the great principles on which this country is based, freedom of the
press stands out as a cornerstone of our democracy. From time to time, that word freedom has to
be spelled out in detail if the First Amendment to the Constitution is to have some specific
meaning. Is the press free, for example, to print any
item, even if it might damage the individual rights of a certain person? Is the press free not to print certain items
because a government agency says it might be a threat to national security? And who decides these matters, the newspaper,
the government, the court? Should a reporter be privileged, protected
by a legal shield, against being forced to reveal his news sources? Does the public have an absolute right to
know? From the National Press Club in Washington,
welcome to another roundtable discussion presented by the American Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan, research and education organization. Today’s guests are well-versed in the topic,
Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment Protections.” Members of our panels are Charles Seib, Associate
Editor of the “Washington Post”. Mr. Seib has been a reporter or editor for
the “Associated Press”, “Gannett News Service”, and “The Washington Star”. Floyd Abrams, a partner in a New York law
firm which specializes in communications law. He has filed many briefs in First Amendment
court cases. Antonin Scalia, an Assistant U.S. Attorney
General involved in press freedom cases. Mr. Scalia served as general counsel in the
White House Office of Telecommunications and is chairman of the Administrative Conference. Edward Epstein, director of a research project
on news agencies sponsored by the Twentieth Century Fund. He’s the author of the book, “News from Nowhere”. Jack Nelson is Washington Bureau Chief for
the “Los Angeles Times”. He’s a Pulitzer Prize winner for his investigative
reporting while serving as a reporter for the “Atlanta Constitution”. Moderating our discussion is William Ruckelshaus. Mr. Ruckelshaus served as Deputy U.S. Attorney
General and is head of the Civil Division of the Justice Department. He also headed the FBI and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mr. Ruckelshaus practices law in Washington,
DC. Now, our moderator, Mr. Ruckelshaus. William Ruckelshaus: Thank you, Mr. Hackes. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
states, “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.” Throughout our history, the meaning of those
words and the nature of the freedom it protects have caused controversy. Tonight, we’re going to discuss with our distinguished
panel, and later the audience, three current controversies whose common theme involves
the tension between the First Amendment and the government’s exercise of power through
the judicial system. Newsman’s privilege. Should a reporter, under any circumstances,
be forced by the courts to reveal their confidential sources of information? The Supreme Court in 1972, in the case of
Branzburg against Hayes, said under certain circumstances a newsman could be forced to
testify before a grand jury and forced to disclose the identity of their confidential
news sources. Since that time, and really before, several
so-called shield laws have been introduced in Congress and in the states to protect the
confidentiality of a newsman’s source from judicial interference. Libel. To what extent does, or should, the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the press from libel actions by private
citizens claiming they were wronged? Is there, or should there be, a difference
between the protections provided a private citizen and a public figure? Lastly, to what extent should the courts prohibit
the publication of classified materials? Starting with the Pentagon Papers case and
continuing with the current sensational revelations about our intelligence-gathering agencies,
are there any limits in the name of national security to what may be published? In no particular order, let’s start with newsman’s
privilege. Mr. Nelson, let me ask you. Should the Congress of the United States pass
a shield law absolutely protecting the rights of a newsman not to reveal his confidential
news sources anywhere in the country? Jack Nelson: Well, I think the Congress should
pass such a law and I think it should be an absolute law, an unqualified law. I would be opposed to any sort of law that
had qualifications and that might open such a bill to amendment in the future. And I’d like to just say, by way of background,
I became a member of a group called the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, which
was formed after Earl Caldwell was subpoenaed in the first case where the Justice Department
began to subpoena reporters during the Nixon administration. This committee, formed of working reporters,
mostly in Washington, saw that there was a necessity to protect the reporters and their
confidential sources in cases, particularly where investigation of government is concerned. And the reporters’ committee has been in favor
from the outset of an unqualified law. Now, I think, for example, that if the Nixon
administration, for example, had been able to subpoena Woodward and Bernstein of the
Post, or other reporters, and learned confidential sources, you would have never had Watergate
uncovered. And there are many other stories that you
can look at that would have never have come out had reporters been subpoenaed and had
they’d been forced to divulge confidential sources. William Ruckelshaus: Mr. Scalia, you’re from the
Department of Justice. Do you have a contrary view to that, or do
you support Mr. Nelson? Antonin Scalia: Well, I think Mr. Nelson’s view
is the most rational, next to what I think is the correct one, and that is that there
should not be a newsman’s privilege law. The reason I say it’s the most logical next
to that is that there are many who think well, we should have a newsman’s privilege law but
it should be qualified. And that, I think, is the worst of both worlds. The problem is, if you have one that’s unqualified,
you just can’t live with it. And if you have one that’s qualified, it just
doesn’t work. So, I think the best state of laws is the
one that we now have in which you cannot get a newsman to testify in court all the time. There are judicial protections against harassment. But on the other hand, there is no instance
in which a newsman can go in and say categorically, “The law gives me an absolute privilege not
to appear.” It really doesn’t help the discussion to put
the whole thing in the context of the Nixon administration subpoenaing newsmen. It normally isn’t the Nixon administration,
it’s normally a court in a criminal case. And as often as not, they’re subpoenaing the
newsmen not on behalf of the government, but on behalf of the defendant. Jack Nelson: I would agree with you that we
shouldn’t necessarily put it just in the context of the Nixon administration, but you’ve got
to realize that the subpoenaing of reporters did not begin though by the Justice Department
until the Nixon administration. Antonin Scalia: I doubt very much whether that’s
true. I don’t know the facts, all the facts on how
many newsmen’s subpoenas there have ever been in the history of American jurisprudence. But I find it difficult to imagine that a
newsman had never been subpoenaed on behalf of either the government or the defense in
any criminal trial prior to Nixon. At least I just… Floyd Abrams: I can’t give you a number, but
we did attempt to look into it and there’s certainly our impression on reading every
case they could find, that prior to the Nixon administration there had been very, very few
cases and very, very few subpoenas issuing, and certainly out of the Department of Justice. That there was a new and to the press and
I think the public, a disastrous flow of subpoenas pouring out of the Department of Justice in
the early days of the Nixon administration. That has stopped certainly to a major extent. We do have, I’d like to add, a qualified privilege
now in law, as a matter of law, because of the cases that that has developed. I would agree with Mr. Nelson that an absolute
privilege would be a better idea. But I don’t think really we should let pass
the idea that a qualified privilege doesn’t do any good. We do have one now. Case after case is coming down, in court after
court around the country, which is establishing that in situations in which there are alternative
sources for example to get information, you can’t go to the newsmen first. And if you really need it very much you can’t
go to the newsmen first. Antonin Scalia: I don’t have a problem with that. The Justice Department guidelines for subpoenaing
newsmen provide exactly that and I have no quarrel with that if you’re talking about
a qualified privilege that is judicially created and administered or one that is administratively
created or administered. But I thought we were talking about legislation
that would establish a qualified privilege in the sense that you don’t adjudge it on
a case-by-case basis, but you have some flat rule that will be applied in a certain category
of cases. I don’t think that achieves what the main
purpose of the newsman’s privilege law is intended to achieve and that is to open up
confidential sources and prevent the so-called chilling effect upon confidential sources
because… William Ruckelshaus: Mr. Seib has a remark. Charles Seib: I just wondered if this was a realistic
discussion. Is there any possibility at all of getting
an absolute privilege law out of Congress? Jack Nelson: No, I doubt seriously that there
is any possibility. Now, at one time, there seemed to be a possibility. Charles Seib: Well, once you concede that you
can’t, wouldn’t you rather stay with the First Amendment than get into a limited… Jack Nelson: I would and I think you said you
would, too but… Antonin Scalia: I said I would too. I have no quarrel with the fact that for two
reasons, one is that freedom of the press is a particularly important freedom under
our Constitution and it deserves some…it has some special constitutional protection. And the second one is that newsmen are particularly
subject to harassment by subpoenas because they’re in the business of finding out, investigating
facts. Police departments could come to rely upon
them to do their jobs. For both of those reasons, I think it makes
sense to accord them some special protection through the courts and through the administrators,
such as the Justice Department not subpoenaing these men willy-nilly, which we don’t do. But beyond that, I don’t think any more is
needed or is, indeed, desirable. William Ruckelshaus: Mr. Epstein, what’s your
view on the privilege? Edward Epstein: I don’t really think that to
clarify the issue and to try and pretend that there has been freedom of the press up to
the Nixon administration, and somehow the Nixon administration violated this freedom
of the press by subpoenaing reporters, is historically accurate. I think you have complete censorship in World
War II and the Korean War when newspapers and magazines were told what to publish on
the covers, what stories to publish, and they were threatened, editors were threatened by
being drafted in the army unless they went along. You had the McCarthy period stretching into
the early 50s when…and newsmen suddenly didn’t have any sort of freedom to report
what they wanted to. And while you might say that you could find
very few cases of the government subpoenaing witnesses before the Nixon administration,
perhaps they didn’t have to. But certainly, in private libel cases, hundreds
of reporters were subpoenaed by one side or the other and made to divulge their sources. And you said at the beginning of the discussion
that newsmen have a right and it’s a question whether Congress should certify that right
by law. But the Supreme Court has never found that
newsman has a right not to testify if they’re a witness to a crime. And the question really is, is it worth elevating
newsmen to some special status by giving them absolute privilege, which neither doctors
nor lawyers have? Mr. Nelson says Watergate would never have
been revealed if newsmen could have been subpoenaed. Well, I remember that Mr. Nelson, I think
had, I would say the single most important revelation on Watergate, as far as the public
was concerned, when he published an interview with an ex-FBI agent, Alfred Baldwin, which
detailed the entire Watergate crime, as seen from the man who was the intermediary between
the Watergate burglars and the conspirators, Hunt and Liddy. And you published this entire interview, and
if you had been subpoenaed–by the way, your editors were–but let’s just say you had and
you went to court and you revealed that Baldwin was your source, I can’t see that it would
have made any difference. Jack Nelson: Oh, I think it’s a little different
story, though. Everybody knew Baldwin was the source. The point here was whether or not the tapes
of the interview should be turned over because the interview had been conducted in confidence. And I think a good point here is though… Edward Epstein: But they were turned over. Jack Nelson: Well, I know, but the point here
is that Baldwin, yeah, but Baldwin wanted them turned over. But let me tell you, though, I think that’s
a very interesting point. We operated in an atmosphere there of an intimidation
of the government of the news media. For example, Ron Ostrow of the “LA Times”
was with me on that case, and the two of us knew, you know, in our own minds that the
government would try to get a hold of these tapes of the Baldwin interview. We felt sure they would. So, when we came back to Washington, we sent
the tapes to Los Angeles, just in order to keep the government from getting them. Now, what happened immediately thereafter
was that Earl J. Silbert, who was the original prosecutor of the Watergate case, did tell
me that, you know, they were gonna subpoena the tapes. He said, “What did you do with the tapes?” And I said, “Well, I can’t tell you. You’ll have to talk to our attorneys.” And he said, “Well, you know, we’re going
to subpoena those tapes, and if we don’t, the defense will.” Well, what happened was that the defense did
subpoena them. And the Justice Department, in the person
of Earl Silbert, stood up in court and said, “We have no objection to the subpoenaing of
the tapes. And as a matter of fact, we want to see them
too.” And that’s exactly my point, is there is intimidation,
I think, of the media when the Justice Department is involved in the subpoenaing of reporters. Edward Epstein: But let’s say hypothetically
that aside from everything else, this witness, Alfred Baldwin, had already testified to the
grand jury, had told them the entire story he told you, so even if you had been intimidated
to the point that you couldn’t publish your story, still the grand jury hadn’t heard the
story and they would have brought it out in the trial. Jack Nelson: Well, no, that’s not exactly right. Let’s put it this way. In the process of investigative reporting,
this was an interview that went on over two nights. And in the process, we learned a lot of things
in that interview that did not go in the Baldwin story. It was a first-person story about Baldwin. It didn’t go in because there were things
that he could not substantiate. We wanted to use these things to investigate
his leads. Do you know what happened? We sent the tapes to Los Angeles because the
editors asked us to do that because we were afraid the government were gonna get them. And we never did get access to those tapes
again, and we have yet to have access to those tapes. And there was material on that, it would have
been helpful to us at that time in investigating Watergate. Antonin Scalia: It was not the government which
ultimately subpoenaed them, though, was it? It was the defense in the case. Jack Nelson: Well, it was the defense who subpoenaed
them, but, the government well it was the government though who said that they’re
going to subpoena them. And the government said, “If we don’t subpoena
them, the defense will.” And it was the government who stood up in
court and said, “This may raise the First Amendment question, but even if it does, the
government has no objection to it.” Floyd Abrams: I’d like to come back to something
Mr. Epstein said earlier about how everyone has to testify to a crime that he’s seen,
and that is certainly a true statement of the law. I don’t think anyone that is advocating a
newsman’s privilege is really advocating, except in one particular type case that I
could touch on, that there should be any exemption from testifying about crimes which they saw. But what people are talking about… Edward Epstein: But isn’t that what he means
when he says absolute privilege? Antonin Scalia: No, he doesn’t. Mr. Nelson is talking about interviewing people. Jack Nelson: Do you ever heard of the case? I mean, you know, this is always a laden argument. I’ve never heard… I’ve never heard… Antonin Scalia: Most of the Justice Department
subpoenas involve two types of situations. One of which is the exact witnessing of the
crime. Television news films of the shooting of George
Wallace, for example. And this, by the way, is one reason I think
the number of government subpoenas to newsmen has increased in recent years because of television,
because of on-the-spot coverage of events at which unlawful action occurs or is charged
to occur, such as demonstrations, Wounded Knee, and so forth and so on. These are actual films of the alleged offense. Now either the government, which is trying
to prove the offense, or even more so the defendant, who is trying to demonstrate that
he didn’t do what he is charged with, it seems to me, has an overpowering right to have that
thing shown to the grand jury and to the jury if it goes to court. Floyd Abrams: That may be so in some cases. I think the problem with that, the “ABC” newsmen
were stoned in New York City when the time came in the late ’60s when they were being
thought of as being police agents, an adjunct to the New York City police force because
they were being so routinely subpoenaed. That the standard crime situation in which
I think there is justification for non-testimony is the Branzburg case itself, where a reporter
goes out, investigates, finds out that hashish is being made in Louisville, Kentucky, reports
on the story, which could not have been made known to the public, absent a pledge of confidentiality,
and then is subpoenaed to testify, has to leave the state finally, else he will wind
up in jail. And I think the public is ill-served by that
kind of law. Antonin Scalia: That is not the typical case,
and I don’t think that any discussion of absolute newsman’s privilege should center either about
solely the government’s desire to get the film or whatever it is, nor should it center
solely upon the confidential source cases, which are the most appealing from the standpoint
of the newsmen. Most of them do not involve confidential sources. The other most common category besides news
films of events is the mailing of tapes and kidnap letters and such things to newspapers
or television news stations or radio stations after a kidnapping, ransom notes, or such
and such a building is going to be blown up. Now, on occasion, these have been denied when
the police wanted the note for the purpose of trying to detect form it where the individuals
concerned happen to be located. I see no reason for the extension of a privilege
in such cases. There’s no confidentiality involved whatever,
and ordinarily there isn’t. William Ruckelshaus: Have you ever been chilled
by a government subpoena that you received? Charles Seib: No, never. When I was managing editor at the “Star”,
we had the Agnew incident where there were some effort to get our reporter’s notes and
that died. I haven’t, but I was wondering, we talk about
the increase in the number of subpoenas and legal efforts to get material from the press. Is any of that due to the sort of separation
between the press and the authorities in the government that the things that used to be
done cooperatively between the press and the authorities is now at the arm’s length distance
between the two has widened and we’re more conscious of the need for separation? Is that one of the factors here? Antonin Scalia: You gentlemen would know better
than I. Jack Nelson: I wouldn’t think so. I mean, it may be a minor factor, but I wouldn’t
think so. I mean, for example, newspaper reporters are
cooperating all the time in cases involving congressional investigations, in cases involving
Justice Department or police investigations. It’s not unusual for a reporter to learn of
some information that has to do with a crime and to cooperate with law enforcement officers. That’s the reason I think that the argument
about whether a reporter will testify if he witnessed a crime, I don’t know of any cases
where reporters really witnessed crimes. Unless as you say, in the case where they
went out and asked somebody to let them see them make hashish so that they could do a
documentary on it. In which case, nobody would have known of
the crime anyway. You raised the case when you were testifying,
for example, a hypothetical situation on the Hill about the shield law. And you said that there could be a situation
now, if you had an absolute shield law, where a television station could have an interview
with Patty Hearst, and then the Justice Department or other law enforcement officials would be
unable to compel the television station to say where they got Patty Hearst, and so forth. Well, the point is that you would know a hell
of a lot more about Patty Hearst at that space than you did before if they didn’t have the
interview. And had Patty Hearst known that this television
station would tell the Justice Department or anybody else where she was, she would never
have shown up for the interview. And this happens all the time. Antonin Scalia: The point I was making at that
point in my testimony was a quite different point from the one we have just been discussing. I think that situation could occur if you
had an absolute shield law. And the main reason I think that situation
would be bad is how seriously does a society really take the battle against crime if it
could allow something like this to happen. You know, I don’t know where Patty Hearst
is on the FBI’s most-wanted list, but let’s assume she’s number one. And there she is, big as life on the screen,
in living color, and, you know, a news reporter having an interview with her. I just don’t think a society can take its
law enforcement efforts seriously if it can allow something like that to occur. Floyd Abrams: We’ve done that in 24 states where
we have privilege laws, many of which are absolute. In New York, for example, that that interview
did occur with Patty Hearst, the New York state authorities could not require a newsman
to disclose the source of that. William Ruckelshaus: I think Mr. Scalia is saying
he doesn’t agree with those things. Antonin Scalia: I am sad for New York. Floyd Abrams: I think I understand that, but
what I’m saying is that the country hasn’t exactly collapsed either. New York is not precisely the best example
of the best functioning. But, you know, we do have these statutes around
the country. We’ve seen no examples that I can cite, or
that have been cited in testimony that I’ve read. Antonin Scalia: Well, maybe New York doesn’t have
Patty Hearst. I don’t know. I think… Floyd Abrams: New York has Abbie Hoffman. Antonin Scalia: I think the Patty Hearst thing
would happen, if Patty Hearst would offer it, there’s somebody who would snap it up
like that. And I think that something like that would
just have an enormously corrosive effect upon not just law enforcement but the entire society’s
respect for the law. Jack Nelson: Wouldn’t the FBI and the Justice
Department know a lot more about Patty Hearst if they saw her interviewed on television
than they know right now? I mean, they know very little now. Antonin Scalia: No, not necessarily. I guess they’d have a current photograph of
her that might be helpful. Edward Epstein: But she might be disguised. Antonin Scalia: You’re seriously asserting that
this would be a help to law enforcement efforts? Jack Nelson: Well, I don’t know, but I’m not
saying it wouldn’t be a hindrance. Floyd Abrams: I would seriously assert that
it’s a help to the public to be able to watch an interview with Patty Hearst rather than
not. And the effect of what you’re saying is that,
in the future, at least, you couldn’t. Antonin Scalia: Well, what if it was Jack the
Ripper? Would that make any difference? I mean here is Jack the Ripper in living color,
you know, “Hi, out there. I’m being interviewing on television. I know the police can’t get this film and
they can’t know where I’m being interviewed, because the laws we live under say it’s more
important to watch me than it is to catch me.” Jack Nelson: Suppose it was Adolf Hitler when
he was alive. William Ruckelshaus: Mr. Epstein has something. Edward Epstein: Now Jack, when you said witness
a crime, that you would be for a witness being compelled to testify if he witnesses a crime,
what happened is you interviewed someone or another reporter you respected interviewed
someone who said in the course of the interview or inferred that he might assassinate the
President? And this came out in the interview… Jack Nelson: Well, obviously, I’d go directly
to the authorities. Edward Epstein: No, but let’s say this came out
in the interview. You put it in your story, and then your notes
would testify to see if they could build a case against the person who said this. Would you submit your notes? Would you testify to the portions of the interview
that you didn’t, because this was the Caldwell case? Jack Nelson: No, how is that in the Caldwell
case? That’s not the Caldwell case at all. William Ruckelshaus: Well, let’s not argue about
this. Let’s take it as a hypothetical. What would you do? Jack Nelson: Well, I’d go directly to the authorities. I don’t think I would need to…if somebody
told me they were getting ready to assassinate the president or anybody else. And see, that’s the reason I say this is a
false issue. I don’t think any reporter who’s a human being
would listen to someone threatening, say they’re gonna kill someone else, no matter who it
is and not take action between… Antonin Scalia: What happens then if the government
subpoenas you on that one? Edward Epstein: How do you define it in court? Jack Nelson: I define anybody who’s gathering
the news for public consumption. And that’s the reason I think the unqualified
shield law would not just apply to me, but it would apply to anybody who went down to
city hall, got information from a confidential source, came out, and distributed it. I think there ought to be an unqualified shield
law. Floyd Abrams: I think we have to decide which
examples are more real, and I really think that a good part of the resolution of these
things has got to go on that. You do have a nice case, I think, Ed, on the
presidential assassin, in the abstract, and Jack the Ripper in the abstract. I think that there’s a more real case, and
that reality is really Paul Branzburg. And that reality is really a reporter who
goes down to a police station, interviews a policeman, and is then made a witness to
his own interview with the policeman. And I had just been through that with a reporter
from the New York Times, a witness to his own interview with a policeman, some of which
was confidential, some of which was not. In totality, it can only interfere with the
public getting the kind of information I think it should get. I really don’t think that the assassination
example, which lawyers, incidentally, are confronted with in court every time that they
argue these cases… Antonin Scalia: Was this the prosecution or the
defense? Floyd Abrams: In that case, it was the defense. Antonin Scalia: It wasn’t often is. And if I were the defendant, I wouldn’t feel
so horrified about, in this instance, maybe not giving the newsman as much leeway as he
would like. It’s a very hard case when you’re talking
about sending a man to jail or not. Floyd Abrams: Yeah, but that doesn’t put any
First Amendment input on the scale at all. Sure it’s a hard case. There are a lot of hard cases. And the fact that it’s a defendant, in fact,
does impress me more than the fact that it’s law enforcement. But to say that it doesn’t seem to me answers
it. Antonin Scalia: No, it doesn’t answer it. And I concede that a court should examine
each case in which a subpoena is sought and say, “Is this really necessary to the case? Is it being done for the purpose of harassment?”
and so forth and so on. But that is something quite different from
laying out either a categorical shield law or even a qualified law that gives an absolute
privilege in certain defined cases, which I find is very difficult to define. William Ruckelshaus: Do you think, Mr. Abrams,
that there is a right to know on the part of the public? Floyd Abrams: Let me say that that’s a phrase
that troubles me because if there is a right to know, then I suppose the public has a right
to compel the press to print things or the judiciary may have the right or someone may
have the right to decide what it is the public should know. I think that the First Amendment ultimately
serves the public by letting it learn things, letting it hear things on television, letting
it see things that it wouldn’t otherwise know. There was a case out in Indiana last year
involving “ABC” in which they were barred by a prior restraint, an injunction by a court,
for over 200 days from doing a show demonstrating, proving, that plastic cribs burned more quickly
than wooden cribs. I think the public had the right to know precisely
what “ABC” wanted to tell them, and that that it was the most offensive interference with
the public’s right and the press’s rights for the courts to intervene in that area and
to interject an injunction which prevented the public from knowing what was going on
there. William Ruckelshaus: What about the case of the
producer of hashish and the impact that that production might have not only on the public
but the children or people watching that television program? Does the society have some very strong interest
in revealing who it is that is producing that and likely to introduce it into the market? Jack Nelson: That was not the thrust of that
particular program, though, was it? Floyd Abrams: In the Branzburg case, the thrust
of it was how easy it was to make hashish in Louisville. Jack Nelson: Yes. It was not to show people how to do it or
to encourage its use. William Ruckelshaus: It showed somebody doing
it though who would then presumably distribute it in the community. Jack Nelson: That’s right. But the point of it though was not to promote
the use of it but to discourage it. That was the point of the program, was it
not? Antonin Scalia: Yes. That goes back to my Patty Hearst case. I don’t like that kind of a show because it
again is telling the society, “Look at what you can do. You can go and take a picture of this thing.” And somebody said, “Gee, why don’t the cops get those guys that are making up this dope and, you know, it’s gonna
go out on the streets, but, well, we will not do anything. Floyd Abrams: I know you don’t like that kind
of show and… Antonin Scalia: I think it’s outrageous, and it
has to corrode the whole attitude of the society towards whether it is really opposed to crime. Floyd Abrams: But I really think that the Department
of Justice or the courts should refrain very strongly from imposing what they don’t like,
which is what you’re talking about, into law. It may be, and indeed it is true, a lot of
things the press prints are harmful. They’re destructive, they hurt people. I think we’ve made a decision in the First
Amendment to run that risk, and not to run the risk of having government officials make
those decisions. William Ruckelshaus: How great should that risk
be? We might move into the issue of libel laws. Is there any right that should accrue to a
private citizen to sue the press if they step over certain bounds in accusing them of wrong? Jack Nelson: Well, they have that
right, don’t they? Yes, they have the right under libel laws. William Ruckelshaus: Yes, they do. I wonder whether you agree that they should
under your theory of absolute… Jack Nelson: Well, under my theory of absolute
privilege I’m not so sure that I’m too much in favor of libel laws, I have to admit. But they do have the right. William Ruckelshaus: Unfortunately? Jack Nelson: Yeah, unfortunately, they do have
the right. You know, I’m almost in favor of absolute
complete press freedom, whatever that may be. Edward Epstein: Then it raises the issue of whether
the public would get the truth or a falsity, because even if the reporters had the right
to publish anything and to conceal their sources so they could concoct any deep source they
wanted, it’s not clear that there’d be any way of testing the truth of what they were
publishing or that, in the long run, newspapers would have any credibility. Jack Nelson: Well, they’re a part of the free
enterprise system, and they sink or swim eventually on their credibility. Edward Epstein: But the newspapers that succeed
with the public might succeed because they publish very plausible lies or unbelievable
truths. Jack Nelson: Some of them do. Edward Epstein: Right, and that’s what you would
want to see? Mr. Nelson: Well, that’s not what I want to
see, it’s what happens in this free market, in this market of free ideas. And I don’t see it as all bad, it’s not all
good but it’s not all bad. Edward Epstein: There’s an alternative Jack Nelson: Yeah, I think the alternative
is government regulation. Edward Epstein: Well, to have strong libel laws. No, no, have strong libel laws. Jack Nelson: Well, that’s government regulation. Edward Epstein: And to have…just this happens
in any book publishing or academic where… Jack Nelson: You’re in favor of stronger libel
laws than we now have? Edward Epstein: Oh, the libel laws we now have
are a joke when it applies to a public figure. It’s almost impossible for a public figure
to successfully sue and it’s very convenient for me, as a journalist. I mean, it makes things very easy. But I think that what’s going to happen in
the long run is the press is going to lose its credibility because so many things will
be published that no one will know what to believe. Jack Nelson: Well, Mr. Seib is part of the
effort to help us restore that credibility by being the ombudsman for the “Washington
Post”. William Ruckelshaus: What is an ombudsman, Mr.
Seib? Charles Seib: Good question. William Ruckelshaus: Tell us. I think it is a growing trend. Charles Seib: That’s a growing trend. The press trying to police itself, I don’t
know if it’s gonna work or not. I’ve been in this job eight months now, and
I’m not sure whether I’m doing good or harm. But until the press is ready to accept its
responsibilities a little better than I think it has that it does generally, I think probably
the libel laws, at least protecting the rights of the private citizen who doesn’t by running
for office or by taking public office expose himself, I think that’s the minimum we should
have right now. I can’t quite see that the press is ready
to remove all restraints and rely totally on the marketplace and the ultimate triumph
of good over evil to solve the problem. The area I’m concerned with is fairness and
accuracy and balance that doesn’t really come under the libel laws. The libel laws are sort of a last resort for
the, as you say, the public figure really doesn’t have much access to them anymore. Jack Nelson: Well, you’re the access. Charles Seib: I’m the access now, to the extent
that a corrective piece or a discussion piece ever catches up with the original error. William Ruckelshaus: Let me try to get back to
that towards the end, Mr. Seib, because I think it’s important what might be done by
the press itself to ensure responsibility. Do you see any other restrictions, for instance,
in the name of national security on the right of the press to print material that comes
into their hands? Charles Seib: I don’t really have…I’m sure you
could concoct a case where national security or the security of certain individuals required
restraint in publishing a story, at least for a short time. But generally speaking, the claims to national
security I think should be very harshly examined by the editors, by the press. My position is that the press does have an
absolute privilege under the First Amendment, that editors be… Edward Epstein: Absolute privilege to do what? Charles Seib: To report whatever it gets a hold
of. William Ruckelshaus: That the courts, in other
words, have no role in trying to restrict the question in printing, even if were to
involve what by a reasonable man’s definition would be a grossly irresponsible act, may
even jeopardize lives of some people, still the courts would have no right to move in. Charles Seib: Well, that’s hard to say. I mean, philosophically I believe that because
I believe that… William Ruckelshaus: How about in practice? Charles Seib: In practice, first of all, I think
they would move in. I think it’s kind of a… Jack Nelson: Look, it’s not very hard to get
the press not to run a story. Charles Seib: That’s right. It’s too easy, as a matter of fact. Jack Nelson: It’s very easy to get the press
not to run a story. William Colby who went around and got the
“Los Angeles Times” and the “New York Times” and the “Washington Post” and “Newsweek” and
“Time” and “NBC” and “CBS” and “ABC” and Public Broadcasting, and I don’t know who else, not
to run the Glomar Explorer story on the grounds of national security. Now, the story ran, and nobody’s been able
to tell anyone where national security was really involved in that. Charles Seib: The picture of this official running
around town, trying to stop this thing, dribbling little bits of information as he went, because
in each conversation he, in order to convince the parties not to publish, he gave them a
little more information. It was really ridiculous when it came down to it. Edward Epstein: But do you think that the public
interest was served? Actually, I read the story in the “Los Angeles
Times”. Didn’t they publish the story, before the
times, two weeks before? Charles Seib: They had the wrong ocean. Jack Nelson: Well, that was before Mr. Colby
had… Edward Epstein: Right. So the story was already published. But, aside from that, I don’t see the public
interest that was served by publishing that the CIA was perfectly legitimately retrieving
a Russian submarine from international waters. That’s the only legitimate operation I ever
heard of that the CIA has done. Jack Nelson: Let me ask you something. Here was a ship out in the middle of the ocean,
operated by Howard Hughes, who’s always been… Edward Epstein: It wasn’t operated by Howard
Hughes. Jack Nelson: Well, all right. It was owned by Howard Hughes. It was a Howard Hughes operation. It was a Howard Hughes-CIA operation. Sure it was. The CIA itself says it was. Edward Epstein: It was a CIA operation. Jack Nelson: It was a Howard Hughes-CIA operation. In any event, do you see nothing wrong with
a private contractor out on the sea recovering a Russian submarine, and with the involvement
of Howard Hughes who’s always been on sort of the fringes of shady government operations? You see nothing wrong with that? And you don’t think the American people are
entitled to know about that? Edward Epstein: Wait a moment. The retrieval of the submarine was done by…Howard
Hughes built the ship, but then it was taken over by another company, Glomar. Jack Nelson: Yeah, which is also a Howard Hughes
operation. Edward Epstein: Well, in any case, I think it
was… Antonin Scalia: Listen, I’ll say no to his question
if nobody else will say no. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I think it was a great job, if indeed it happened
the way they said and… William Ruckelshaus: Well, why not publish it? Edward Epstein: Well, the reason not to publish
it is very clear, is it stopped them from retrieving the rest of the submarine. That’s the reason not to publish it and it… Floyd Abrams: That’s what they say. Edward Epstein: …it destroys the expenditures. Jack Nelson: Do you think that the Russians
didn’t know that the ship was out there? I mean the CIA said they assumed that they
knew. Edward Epstein: But this is the key issue. Who is to be the arbiter of what… Jack Nelson: I would say the press. Edward Epstein: You want the press to be the
arbiter? Let’s say something is of interest to the
national security where the press would somehow know what the Russians knew and what the Russians
didn’t know? I don’t want to be the arbiter of what… Jack Nelson: Listen, they claim national security
argument was used to cover up Watergate, to cover up the Ellsberg burglary. All of the things that came out after Watergate,
national security was stamped on almost every one of them. Edward Epstein: Right, of course, in other words,
you want to be the arbiter of whether some operation is a national security or not. Let’s just get this very clear. Jack Nelson: Well, let’s face it. Yeah, I think the press should be. Edward Epstein: And you feel that your education
and your knowledge of the world that you are someone… Jack Nelson: Not just me, the press generally. Edward Epstein: Well, I just can’t take that presumption. Floyd Abrams: Mr. Epstein, the alternative is
allowing the Department of Justice and the court system, that other branch of government,
to make those same decisions as to what the press can print. And I think that that has very considerable
risks, which are well recognized in the First Amendment itself. The Pentagon Papers, of course, is a good
example of that. God knows we heard enough about national security
in that case, about documents which were historical in nature… Jack Nelson: But that was another case of where
the press cooperated with the government and did not run them. Antonin Scalia: Wait a minute, who do you mean
by the press? I asked before who was the newsman. And you’re talking about the press cooperating,
when we get the picture everybody would, you know? Edward Epstein: Well, the “New York Times”, they’d
run the Pentagon Papers until it was authorized by the court, isn’t that right? Antonin Scalia: Some cases that have come before
the court have involved reporters from an SDS underground newspaper, and do these people
have any less claim to being reporters? Jack Nelson: No. Antonin Scalia: All right, then you say it’s one
thing if a spy gets information and disseminates it, but it’s quite something else if he’s
working on the staff of the “Daily Worker”. Is that the distinction you draw? Floyd Abrams: If it’s the “Daily Worker”, it
may be espionage. And if it’s espionage, it should be liable
to criminal prosecution. But if it’s news gathering, I think there
is a distinction. I don’t think it’s a hard distinction. Antonin Scalia: I don’t want to be on the other
side in court, having to demonstrate that distinction. Floyd Abrams: Well, I would hope that you would
recognize that distinction between the “Daily Worker” and other newspapers which gather
news for the purpose of reporting news to the public. Antonin Scalia: Well, you surely can’t distinguish
between one newspaper and another. You must have some principle as to how it’s
acquired or why it’s acquired. Jack Nelson: Look, you know if a reporter for
the “Daily Worker” is involved in espionage work, the results of that are not gonna show
up in the “Daily Worker”. Charles Seib: You have to assume that to have
a free press, and I’m convinced that the system wouldn’t work without it, there’s a price. Now, perhaps it would have been better. The CIA might have been able to go back and
gotten the code machine, if such there exists, if we haven’t printed the Glomar story. But that was the price for a free society. Edward Epstein: But what did we gain for that
price? Other than one day… Jack Nelson: I don’t know that we’ve lost anything. Edward Epstein: I don’t know that we’ve lost
anything either but… Jack Nelson: You see, we don’t even know that
we got anything. All we know is what the CIA told us, and that’s
all. And we do know they don’t always tell us the
truth. Edward Epstein: But that’s my problem. I have no way of knowing what a code machine
is, no less how it would be valuable to figuring out some Soviet codes or not figuring them
out. I agree with you, I’m absolutely ignorant
in this field. But then how can we the arbiters of whether
something is legitimate national security or not? That’s the dilemma, as I see it that, you
know, someone has to… Floyd Abrams: The solution to that is maybe
the press ought to, given a credible government, sometimes believe it. Edward Epstein: Yeah. Floyd Abrams: And I mean, I have no objection
to Mr. Colby going around Washington trying to persuade people,
I think the press ought to make the decision about whether to believe it. Jack Nelson: Obviously, a lot of editors did
believe him, because they didn’t run the story until finally Jack Anderson broke it on radio
one night. So, obviously, a lot of editors and a lot
of television news executives did believe Mr. Colby. Antonin Scalia: Well, I think this analysis of
the Glomar thing as to the possible harm it could have done is really not as profound
as it ought to be. What action the Russians can take if they
already know it may be quite different from what actions the Russians can take and feel
obliged to take if they already know it and the whole world knows that they know it. Peter Hackes: It’s obvious that freedom of the
press means different things to different people. Sometimes even the courts have trouble interpreting
this basic constitutional protection, especially when there’s a conflict among the people’s
right to know, protection of individual rights, and the safety of the republic. Now, to challenge our speakers on the freedom
of the press, let’s go to our experts in the audience. William Ruckelshaus: Without any more introductions
in that, I would like to call on somebody from the audience who might have a question. Yes, sir? Howard: I’m Howard Penniman from Georgetown
University. Back in June, the “Los Angeles Times” printed
a story about George MacArthur about the heavy bombing of South Vietnam on the last days
of the war. And then Mr. Seib wrote an excellent commentary
on it a little later. And then last week, on the 25th, the “Los
Angeles Times” wrote a retraction of it. Indeed, George MacArthur himself wrote the
retraction. And the Post, on the following day, printed
a note on the retraction. The Post in printing the note said that it
was clear that the White House and the Pentagon did not have any responsibility for any significant
bombing. What the Post did not include was included
in the “Los Angeles Times”, which was that all the efforts made by the reporter in Washington
could find no evidence of any significant bombing, in fact, two have been ordered by
anyone. Furthermore, which leaves still some questions
on how far did the “Los Angeles Times”, or should the “Los Angeles Times” go in protecting
something which you more or less laughingly referred to as American reputation or American
face, and that is involved in this? Is it enough to simply absolve the President? Is it enough to simply say that yes, we have
now said there was not significant bombing, which still leaves it implied that there was
some kind of bombing, in fact, which is not yet demonstrated? All of this from one of these wonderful sources
which we are to protect. I would like to hear Mr. Scalia on anything
about whether he believes this is adequate for the protection of national security, whether
their judgments appear to be good, or either the others on what is a defense of such actions. Antonin Scalia: I don’t want to answer that I
guess, for the reason that I really sort of jump off the boat as far as the proper role
of government is concerned when it comes to correcting the news media, being sure that
what they are reporting they’re reporting accurately and correctly. That’s none of my business. I don’t think it’s any of the government’s
business. That’s something quite different. What we were talking about earlier was just
the simple questions of can the government obtains the information it needs that is necessary
for the administration of justice, and can the government in some situations at least,
prevent the dissemination of information that would be detrimental to vital national interests? Those two questions are quite different from
the problem of if you want to call it irresponsibility of the press. I think we’ve made a decision on the First
Amendment that they can be as irresponsible in what they choose to say as they wish and
that the corrective is the voice of those that are responsible and can correct them,
and to some extent, the libel laws, I suppose. Jack Nelson: Well, I would agree with Mr. Scalia
that there’s not something for the government to take any action on, or anyone else other
than the newspaper itself. Now, the government did take action, in that
the government not only denied it but pursued its denial. As a matter of fact, I happened to run into
Ron Nessen, the President’s press secretary, at a bar on the evening before the retraction
came out. It was not just the day before but some time
before, and Nessen told me at that time, he said, “You had the story…” and he said,
“We called in and we told the “Los Angeles Times” that the White House unequivocally
denied that the bombing had taken place. And he said, “Yet, you ran the story, and
down in the story you ran the denial parenthetically.” He said, “We think that’s wrong.” And I said, “Well, I don’t know any more about
it than what you’ve just told me and what I have seen in the paper, and if we don’t
have more to substantiate it than that, I think you are right; I think it is wrong.” And he said he was gonna write to the editor,
which I’m sure he did. Now, Charles Seib did write an editorial column
on it, as the ombudsman for the “Washington Post”, in which he said the “LA Times” had
never been able to substantiate its original story. Bill Thomas, the editor of the paper, took
it very seriously. He looked into it. George MacArthur, who had wrote the story
and was in our Saigon bureau, came back to the United States. He spent two to three weeks trying to prove
whether the information was wrong or whether it had been right and the government denial
was wrong. He could never really get any substantiation
for it and he admitted it and he wrote the story. But I think the point is, and Bill Thomas
said this in the article that MacArthur wrote, Bill Thomas said that the “Los Angeles Times”
was wrong. It should not have run the story because it
got an unequivocal denial, that it should have gone back to MacArthur. And this is not really an excuse but it’s
what happened. The communication never got back to MacArthur
that there was an absolute unequivocal denial and the story ran with the denial. Bill Thomas says the paper should have never
run it. We ran a page one correction, as Charles Seib
said, probably the longest retraction in the history of journalism. “The Washington Post” ran it on page one and
the “New York Times” picked it up and ran it. And I think we should have run it. I don’t know what else you can do beyond that,
but I think it’s a good reflection of what newspapers are addressing themselves to now
and a matter of responsibility on these things. So we’ve got an ombudsman now, for example,
or at least a media critic, by the name of David Shaw. He does the same sort of criticism, in a sense,
that Charles Seib does and he frequently writes a story that we run on page one. And he has criticized the “Los Angeles Times”,
as well as other parts of the news media when he has found that they’ve been in error. But I don’t know what else we can do on it
other than correctives. I mean, you can’t…I suppose if a man got
too far out and was involved in the story, he might run the risk of his job. I’m sure that whoever was on the desk and
who didn’t get the message back to MacArthur or something, he’s probably heard from the
editor about it. I don’t know what else you can do though. Charles Seib: I’d like to comment on that because
I think that that whole episode raises a couple of points that go far beyond the story. First of all, one of the main reasons I wrote
the column was not because I knew whether the story was right or wrong, because I didn’t
at that time. But I had a feeling that neither the Post
nor the Times was ever going to tell us whether it was right or wrong. I think the press has been very reluctant
to clean up its own messes and both the Post and the Times led with that story on Sunday
morning, and making a charge, sticking a couple of parenthetical denials in it. And I knew that it was gonna just die there
unless somebody gave them a push. Edward Epstein: Well, you say you don’t know
what the press could do about publishing something that might be a falsehood. Now, I think there is a very simple thing
the press could do and it doesn’t involve the government at all. The journalist could simply publish his source. In this case, if MacArthur had published who
had told him that the United States had bombed Vietnam on that day, that source would be
quickly discredited. Let me give you an example. There was a charge made that Alex Butterfield
was a CIA agent in the White House. The “New York Times”, to its credit, if it
didn’t name its source, it intimated so strongly that its source was this man Fletcher Prouty. Was that his name? Floyd Abrams: Yeah. Edward Epstein: That very quickly people zeroed
in on him and it became clear that he named his source then as E. Howard Hunt. And very quickly E. Howard Hunt then denied
that he knew anything at all about Butterfield, and Butterfield was cleared without a major
calamity. Jack Nelson: George MacArthur would have no
sources if he identified a resource where, you must understand that. Edward Epstein: Well, but is it better that the
public have the truth? Who’s the client of newspapers? Is it the public or is it the source? If you’re trying to protect the source or
the reporter, sure it’s better for the reporter if he never names his source. But what about the 10 million readers of the
“Los Angeles Times” who read that… Jack Nelson: They will know the story was wrong. What else can you do? Edward Epstein: They might not. They might not have read…the same people
who read the paper on one day might not have read it on another day. Also, the “Los Angeles Times” denial wasn’t
unequivocal. It said that no significant bombing we were
able to establish, so it becomes much more confusing. William Ruckelshaus: Let me ask Mr. Nelson, like
what effect, you indicate that this responsibility to act responsibly should primarily be left
to the press, if not exclusively left to the press. What effect do you think the competition for
news has on the exercise of this responsibility? Jack Nelson: Well, I think it has a tremendous
effect. And not only that, I think the whole diversification
of the media had a tremendous effect. I mean, if we go… William Ruckelshaus: Positive or negative? Jack Nelson: Well, it’s positive. I don’t think there is any question about
that. I mean if we go way out on a limb on something,
as we did on the Vietnam bombing, you know, we’re gonna get caught short on it. You’ve got all of the news magazines, you’ve
got the networks, you’ve got the large newspapers, you’ve got all the wire services, AP, UP,
the supplemental news services, and if you really make a substantial error on a matter
of some importance, you’re gonna be…the public is gonna know about it. And it’s gonna know about it beyond Mr. Seib’s
work because other publications will find out about it. And you can’t retain your… William Ruckelshaus: How often do other publications
point out the errors made by… Jack Nelson: On matters of substance, I think
they do it frequently. They may not say that this was an error, but
they print the story as it really happens, which you know… William Ruckelshaus: To what extent do you think
the competition that occurs forces you to come out with stories before you are able
to completely verify their accuracy? Jack Nelson: Well, I think it happens sometimes
and I think it’s regrettable. I don’t think it happens very often. I mean, I can remember a few very bad examples. I can remember, for example, the Eagleton
matter involving Jack Anderson, which I thought was bad and which he later admitted was bad. But how many instances can you think of on
a really major matter where a newspaper or radio or television came out with something
of real importance that was wrong because it was trying to be first? When they do it, it’s inexcusable. William Ruckelshaus: Sure. Let me give the Agnew case involving the vice
president of the United States. The competition among the press was fierce
in that case. And they were all over the Justice Department
halls and the U.S. attorney’s office in Baltimore, plus the vice president’s office himself,
trying to get information on an ongoing investigation for which there was no cover-up. Many of the stories… Jack Nelson: All of that happening, however,
in the aftermath of Watergate when people would have been expecting a cover-up. William Ruckelshaus: Yeah, I am not saying that
it wasn’t understandable, but that doesn’t make it justifiable. Jack Nelson: It doesn’t. I agree with you. William Ruckelshaus: Many of the stories that
were published were full of inaccuracies. Charles Seib: Don’t you think the Butterfield-Prouty
incident might not have happened if the “NBC” and “CBS” hadn’t been so competitive? Jack Nelson: Yeah, I think that’s possible. And I think, you know, there are cases, but
I don’t think there are that many major cases where you find this. And when it does happen, it’s absolutely inexcusable. I don’t think there’s any way to say that
newspapers or television are right ever when they try to be first and they’re wrong. And I don’t think that’s the trend, either. I think the trend is in the opposite direction. I know it’s the trend, for example, on the
“Los Angeles Times”, and it has been for a long time. We’ve been told for example in the Washington
bureau, look. And I’ve had particular cases where I would
be on the story and say, “”The New York Times” is here, the “Washington Post” is here,” and
this was in the past few years. And the editor on the end of it was just,
“Hold on, don’t get the story. Now get it, be sure you get it all. Be sure it’s absolutely right. We don’t care if they’re first.” Now, everybody wants to be first, you know,
there’s no question about that. But I don’t think that’s the trend in journalism
in this country. I think the trend is to be right, not first. William Ruckelshaus: “Don’t get it right, get
it written,” is no longer screamed in the city. Jack Nelson: I think that’s right. Antonin Scalia: Mr. Ruckelshaus is not suggesting,
I take it, that we’d be better off if we had only one newspaper. William Ruckelshaus: No, I’m not, but I think
that it often is missed on the part of the public that the competition for news, particularly
here in Washington, is very strong. And that this competition itself has a way
of creating its own momentum for a story to be published before there is adequate opportunity
to verify it. And having been involved in the middle of
this Agnew investigation, I thought that was a prime example of where “The New York Times”
would editorialize about the Justice Department leaking information which we were unable to
find in the newspaper, as though this was awful. Why don’t they protect this poor man’s rights? And then they unleash a horde of reporters
in that same department trying to get…there were certain Olympian… Floyd Abrams: Wasn’t that the “Washington Post”? William Ruckelshaus: No, that was the “New York
Times”. Jack Nelson: Don’t you agree, though, that
there have been unusual times in Washington in the past few years, with Watergate and
the fact that the resistance of government to give out information of legitimate public
interest, information that should have been given out? It took 18 months to find out who was on the
White House payroll during the Nixon administration. I mean, these matters you could go down to… William Ruckelshaus: I’ll bet you still haven’t
found out. Jack Nelson: That’s right. I think our time is up. William Ruckelshaus: I think that we are running
out of time. And again, in closing I would like to indicate
my appreciation and that of our panel for the audience’s participation, and recognize
that while we’ve all joined here together and by no means where we leave in complete
agreement, one of principles that has been stood up for here with such great articulation
by the defenders of the press, I believe is precisely the reason we’re able to meet like
this as free men and women and discuss as freely as possible and with little chance
of any interference, issues as important as freedom of the press and the future of this
society. So, again, on behalf of the panel let me thank
all of you for your participation and thank the members of the panel for being here. Peter Hackes: This roundtable discussion has
brought you the ideas of five experts who have differing views on the many interpretations
of freedom of the press. It is the aim of the American Enterprise Institute
to illuminate issues of the day by presenting many such views, in the hope that by so doing
those in positions of decision-making will benefit from such a free exchange of informed
and enlightened opinion. I’m Peter Hackes in Washington. Announcer: “Public Policy Forums” is created and
supplied to this station as a public service by the American Enterprise Institute, Washington,

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *