THIS IS TO COMMENT ON ELOISE PAGE S PAPER RE INITIATIVES TO COMBAT UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2008
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: May 15, 1984
• Content Type: LETTER

I
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
e"?0U i Il1G AN G 7,VNSMITTAL SLIP
(N,mi, off c? %yrnBol, room number, (i ry
buirdhriv, Adnncy/Post)
a. Director of Central Intelliqence
Initials
Da;
4.
EL
on
File
Nota and Return
oval
For Clearance
Psr Conversation
As Requested
ti
For Correction
Prepare Reply
rculate
For Your Information
See Me
?mment
Investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justi
f^rMMARKS
A few weeks ago you asked me for any thoughts we
might have on Eloise Page's paper on unauthorized
disclosures. I asked a thoughtful member of the
staff for his thoughts, and they are attached. You
misiht be interested. In particular I like the idea
of sof kind of program of periodic sessions with
classes in journalism schools.
DO NOT usa this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clemances, and similar actions
FROM: HP _?r a, or3: symbol, Agency/Post)
~aries~~fi.~ Taylor, Inspector General
5041-l,iz
Room No.-Bldg.
6E18 Has.
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prvicribe4 by GS.1
FPMR (41 101-11.206
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
 Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
SECRET
15 May 1984
J im,
1. This is to comment on Eloise Page's paper re initiatives
to combat unauthorized disclosures.
2. In short, her measures look pretty good--particularly
the legislation, FBI unit and special prosecutor. If they are
politically feasible, their very existence may help. A single
well-publicized, high-level conviction would do a lot.
3. One thing missing from the paper is a strategy for
de,-,ling with the media. Yet they are principal villains in the
disclosure business.
4. We can just accept the idea that the media have an
unlimited license to hunt and publish, that the public has an
unlimited right to know, that government secrets are fair prey
for media watch-dogs, that the First Amendment inhibits any
restraints, and that the proper, democratic relation between
go',ernrnent and media is adversarial. Conversely, we can quietly
o~:- rve that absolute power corrupts absolutely, that the power
of the media to publish in this country is nearly absolute, that
other people besides the media have the job of promoting the
general welfare and providing for the common defense, and that
the freedom of the media among others hangs directly on the
success of those people. Also, as officers of CIA we can bear
personal witness to the massive cost--in cancelled programs, in
lost opportunities, in opposition countermeasures and in threats
to (loss of - ?) life--that media exposure has brought. More, we
can cite precise parallels in methods and results, if not in
motivations, between the media's attempts to penetrate us and our
opposition's attempts to do the same. Maybe we have an
obligation as citizens and taxpayers with knowledge that is
important to the nation's welfare to give voice to our fears.
5. The Agency's posture toward the media is basically
defensive, reactive and tongue-tied. What we say is: "no
comment"; "that disclosure was wrong and outrageous." Next we
wring our hands, send emissaries out to brief key people in the
Administration and Congress and correct the record, then hunker
back awaiting the next blow. Maybe it's time for an offense as
well as a defense and an attempt to get things in better
balance. Here are some personal thoughts as to do's and don'ts
on this score.
All portions are
classified SECRET
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
 Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
SECRET
DON'T
? Don't believe we should, or can, frontally attack the
concepts listed at the start of paragraph 4.
? Don't announce a program to curb the media's excesses.
? Don't expect much help from Congress in the way of
legislation, e.g., an Official Secrets Act.
? Don't assume that World War II slogans ("Loose Lips Sink
Ships") will do much; they are nostalgia.
? Don't expect much help from Congress when it comes to CA;
there's a lot of political mileage in exposure; besides, it's too
easy to argue there's a public interest in debating actions that
could lead to war.
? Don't believe the media are monolithic, all with the
ethics of an alley-cat; they have owners, Boards, managers,
editors, broadcasters, reporters, et al.; most of them have as
big a stake in the U.S. as anybody else.
? Don't forget that public confidence in the press is low;
per Time magazine in December only '13.7 percent of the public
reportedly had confidence in the press; the latter have their own
reasons for wanting to improve the image.
? Think long-term, expect that self-discipline is probably
all we can hope for from the media in the foreseeable future.
? Remember that the problem is not ours alone; it extends
to the whole Community; the latter should want to help.
? Let it be known that we, the nation, are getting hurt;
admit the pain; professional stoicism isn't getting us anywhere.
? Recognize the need for outside allies; a Presidential
statement and a Conmission are good ideas; so would be the
formation of some successor organization to maintain a continuity
of effort; direct CIA sponsorship would be pilloried.
? Prepare a sanitized list of examples of foolish media
disclosures--ones that have cost the country or individuals
substantially
2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
 Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
SECRET
? Admit the proposition that secrecy has been used to
shroud abuse; but challenge the proposition that it has no
legitimacy; articulate the peace-time rationale.
? Recognize that despite the media we have a big bank of
acceptance and good will out there in the society at large.
? Remember that the organization has official contacts with
influential people outside the Community--people in leadership
posts in this society; academia and the media included; and
remember that we undoubtedly have in the organization many who
know such people unofficially and who could help to provide
access if needed.
? Remember that restraint of the press is not per se
undemocratic. The British and Israeli examples come to mind. So
does our own press' self-restraint in time of war. Freedom of
speech and of the press are not absolute concepts.
? Emphasize the fragility of sources and methods.
? Rebut the concept that this is just a game of hide and
? Remember this is a mercenary business; disclosures sell
papers; individual reporters go on the speakers circuit and get
big fees.
? Remember that media freedom is basically a good thing for
the U.S., as is its adversarial relation to government--but not
at any cost.
6. If we can get the Presidential Statement, Presidential
Commission and legislation recommended by Eloise Page, they would
be a springboard for some other steps. These occur to me:
? Members of the intelligence establishment are public
figures, and they get the spotlight with some regularity--e.g.,
McFarlane on Meet the Press 14 May. Whatever the agenda for such
get-togethers may be, and however out-of-order it may seem, I
can't see missing the chance to testify to one's personal concern
about the damage done by unauthorized disclosures and to put the
question to the media of whether any consideration of ethics/
propriety/legality/cost apply to publication. The Office of
Public Affairs has constant contact with the media, and the same
opportunity arises, though not in the limelight. Still,
repetition of the points may plant some seeds.
? The media have owners, Boards of Directors, managing
editors et al. (We had some success for a while in staving off
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
 Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1
The best tack,-I
think, would be to go to them, state our problem and ask whether
there are any situations, short of war, where they would be
willing to exercise self-restraint and, if so, to solicit their
advice in developing some rules of reason. For example, would it
be possible to appoint some authority of sufficient stature
(e.g., a Board of ex-Presidents) that the media would trust it on
matters of national security? One thing that shouldn't be
omitted frorn such a session with the- media brass--examples of how
they've had their cord pulled by disinformation and by charla-
tans.
? The media do give some lip-service at least to ethics--
Hodding Carter's "Inside Story" on PBS purports to keep a
watchful eye on media ethics, likewise the Post's ombudsman, and
th~'re must be others. One way or another we ought to try to get
such people to address the issues that concern us.
? We have periodic sessions with college and university
presidents, some of them undoubtedly with schools of
jr.urnalism. Why miss the chance of putting our case in these
fc_cnnans as well? The result might well be a challeng- to the
practice of publishing indiscriminately whatever an iIvestigative
rerarter can come up with. And, given some curricula,-i changes,
the next generation of reporters might show some elevation of
ethics..
7. These are preliminary thoughts. Others may have better
ones. The basic thesis is that we can't just throw in the towel
vis a vis the media.
Approved For Release 2009/03/11: CIA-RDP86M00886R002800020020-1