CONSERVATIVE FORUM 'THE U.S. AND USSR AFTER DETENTE'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 84
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 22, 2004
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 29, 1977
• Content Type: NSPR

ARTICLE AP'1 1096"d For ReI fAjOp#k'k11Fg1 : CIA-RDP88-0131
ONE .GE 29 January 1977
"The,U.S ands USSR After Detente"
=is the subject: of ?a two-day . conference:
to be held i
~tatler-Tton
:.w1l will- participate- in
the *conference will be j
Dr. Ray Cline of the
Center and
International -Studies
rossnyr of Georgetown Univer-
sity, Dr. Pri in Crozier, director of the
1Iz~stit_ ute for the Study of Conflict.
Lo
d
n
on as well a D Stf P
,sr.eanossony.
o the Hoover Institution on War, Rev-
olution and Peace and. Dr: Ley Dobri~
ansky,. '::'professor- of_ -economics.. at
eorgetown Urriversit
G y
~
-Participating.: organizations include
:
tltc .AFL-CIO: Executive' _'.-Council
.American- Conservative Union;,'xhe
American' Legion; -American Security
Council,..Yeterans of Foreignft. Wars of
the'U.S.; and the Young Americans for:
Freedom, among others.. ti-
-j-: Registration will cost $-25: at the door;
$20 in advance, and can be obtained by
writing 1735 De Sales St_. ',W., Suite
500
Washin
ton D.C.2
o
-
,
g
r ph
003b
,'.oning 202-783-9447.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved .For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R00
THE DAILY (UNIV. OF WASH;SEAT`2LE)
20 JAIlUARY 1977
CI.
U participate& i-611%
minority recruitment
By JOHN SNELL tive action guidelines for employment.
But some have accused the CIA program
The University has been' actively in- of being a plan to find minority students
volved in a program to recruit minority to take part in clandestine operations in
students for the Central Intelligence. Africa, South America and the Middle
Agency, The Daily has learned. East.
Although the CIA has said the. program. The CIA has. been criticized in the past.
is intended to fulfill affirmative action for its college recruiting activities. In the
requirements, some CIA critics believe mid-sixties, the agency placed five
-the recruitment program is designed to agents at Michigan State University.
find intelligence agents to spy on students Under their cover as professors at Mich-
and third world countries. igan State, the agents were assigned to ?
In August, 1975, UW President John train the South Vietnamese Police. Par-
Hogness was asked to send representa. tially as a result of that activity, then-
tives to a conference at CIA headquar- President Lyndon Johnson ordered the
ters in Langley, Virginia. The'CIA said CIA off the nation's campuses.
Its conference was called to discuss af- ; More recently, the,Select Committee to
firmative action and ethnic recruiting for : Study Governmental Operations with.
Respect to Intelligence Activities _ (the
the intelligence orgamzaLlon. .
Two University - administrators-Wi1-' "Church Committee") criticized the
liam L. Baker, assistant vice president CIA's use of professors and "graduate
- and Herman Me students engaged in teaching" as CIA
Affairs
Minorit
f
,
y
or
Kinney, assistant dean of the graduate operatives.
school-wer? selected to attend. Hogness The Churc Committee eesaid the CIA is
said he has no recollection of either the presently employing
letter from the CIA or his decision to "providing leads and, on occasion,
-send two representatives to the confer- making introductions for intelligence -
ence. purposes ...." In other words, to re-
According to McKinney, CIA officials cruit spies.
were interested in "placing minority stu- . The agency, according to the Church
dents in'all phases of their program.91 Committee Report, has shown a partic-
Vice president Baker said the agency ular interest in "academics" and stu-
was interested in students from all fields, dents who are about to travel abroad.
particularly those -with a background in And Morton Halperin, director of the
economics, political science and business Project on National Security and Civil
administration. . Liberties, has accused the agency of
Baker said he relayed the information using its campus agents to recruit foreign
about CIA. employment opportunities to students to spy on their own governments
counselors in each division of the Office and other foreign students.
of Minority Affairs. _ University Assistant Vice President
As a result of that action, Baker said Baker said the CIA promised a recruiter
he has received a number of job inquiries would come to campus shortly after the
from students. October, 1975 meeting. But Baker said
Both men emphasized that the meeting that to his knowledge, no. recruiter has
ived
t
.
arr
was called to help the CIA fulfill affirma- ye
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 25X1
Approved-for.Release 2004/1.1/01.'. -CIA-RDP88r0131'f
Jan-u0 j 31, 1977 .CONGR "TONAL RECORD-Extensions of I
sufficient imported'home heating oil at + CON=.,,RENCE 'AGAINST INTELLI-
U.S. heating oil and thereby stabilize
slightly reduce the cost to homeowners. Olv
the severity and immediacy of the problem
we face; I strongly recommend that a full
-HON. LARRY.McDONALD
entitlement be granted to all New England THE HOi3SE OF Rl PRE5i;N CAT,IVI S
Importers of home heating oil--even at the
cost of temporarily. Increasing our reliance - Monday, January 31, 1977
on foreign oil imports.
If ..,e Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the
es
I n asses?'"? this
pr
en
expe
char
of t
it w
and
Orla
iccc;
No
"(NCI
membe
th
e campaign to blind our .vLG both send representatives to c:to
cannot designate a villain perhaps it is be- lenders or
?cause.the fault lies too close to home. A Fed- Nation's Federal and local intelligence- Ings of the Soviet-controlled IADL.
eral Energy Administration check of New gathering agencies so that criminal and -- National Emergency Civil Liberties'Com-
England distributors has not found any in- totalitarian groups may be free to plot mittee (NECI:C), a cited Communist Party,
stances of price gouging nor .any Increase against our constitutionally guaranteed n.onra front composed of NLO members and
in normal profit margins. The proponents of rights unhindered, and that terrorists n ,
-home heating oil decontrol cannot be faulted, - Political etical Rights De. co m un Socialist
it is likely that. high foreign spies may operate undis- front of the Trotskyist. Socialas y prices' and. short.
supplies would have been experienced this turbed met last week in Chicago to ex- Workers Party (SWP),.the U.S. section of the
winter under continued controls. Our fed- change information and coordinate their Fourth International which is actively en-
eral re lato activities - ?_ gaged _ in terrorism in many countries. The
gu rp. agencies were- exonerated ? "* =" PROF. raises money for the SwF lawsuit
from blame when Congress -voted to decon- -A National Conference on Government
against the FBI and other law enforcement
trot and approved of the Post Exemption- SpyinS- i w a the Nor w- agencies, and disseminatespropaganda. The
Monitoring System. The blame for. New Eng- wes ra -?Unlversity School of Law in Fourth International has close onnections
-land's . most recent "energy crisis", if it Is - Chicago, on January 20-23, -1977: The. with the Cuban communists and- it is of
to be assumed at all, must be shouldered conference was organized b the National interest that the SWP's la.
:'by our failure to coordinate both a national by wyei a also represent
_and-regional energy policy. The present ex Lawyers. Guild-NLG--which first.pro- the [:uban.government."-
orbltant'costs and the, danger of insufficient posed the, conference at its August 1976 ' Tbe-NCGS organizers stated th6'c on=
-supplies are further examples of- the price national executive board-NEB-meet- ference was
alled "in order t
m
bili
e
c
o
o
z
we- pay in- the absences of a definitive energy 1n$ in Brunswick,. N.J ?
vro?ram. We cannot continue to nnarnta . --.. -- . - _ -opposition _to secret police activity" and.
--.ment.becomes responsive to our unique re-
gioaal.energy_.nee''eds and that such aware-
ness results in affirmative actions which ad-
dress those specified needs. We, as repre-
sentatives of the New England region, must
-become increasingly cognizant of our par-
ticular- energy problems and develop a re-
gional program to, meet them. The relatively
lower home heating oil costs in the rest of
our PEA price monitoring region Is just one
example Of the.signifldant differences that
Knee and in -violent prison riots. The - Broadly " ' painting all' -'intelligence-`
NLG International-Committee maintains gathering niethods=-"secret surveillance,
open liaison with terrorist Marxist "lib-, wiretapping,.maintenance of illegal dos
eration movements" - such -as the' Pal-- spers and photo files, 'black bag jobs,' and
estine Liberation Organization. The NLG - `counterintelligence' tactics" as "illegal"
is a member of the Soviet-controlled In- -and -"shocking," the NCGS organizers
ternational Association of Democratic ' claimed there has been "systematic viola-
Lawyers-IADL: the NLG was formed tion of: the - privacy and -fundamental
with the assistance of the Comintern in rights of large numbers'-of _citizens".
1936 and was cited as the "foremost legal whose _ "only- 'crime' -has been inde-.
region, ~< v ; .~ _ .-?-.s fronts and controlled unions" The NLG mild criticism of-the established order."
' First and foremost a' program of resource ' now operates as a working coalition of The conference-goers the not mention
riortty usage for the nation and our re- C
i
ommun
st Party, U.S.A.-CPUSA- , that law enforcement intelligence-Bath-
gion -must be devised and strictly enforced. members and suppo
ters
Castroite C
in
e i
tit
t
r
,
om- ey
g programs wer
ns
u
ed in. re-
.ourif--,nrimaimportedra flla7 -- petroleum- products are to be m?nictg, Maoist Communists, and. vari- sponse to the violent and' totalitarian
l- r #-. +5.r l,ae+ ~nn
porters and distributors can rely on. These . American Civil Liberties Union ACLU) In response to increased activities in this
-
riorities
in turn
ld
i
p
,
, wou
requ
re us to strut- which stated in its 1970-71 Annual Report country on behalf of Soviet, Cuban, and
-lure-our'-environmental regulations to tom- "The ACLU has made the dissolution of the ..-Vietnamese Communists -which was ac-
pliment that time table so that utilities can . Nation's vast - surveillance network a - top- - companied by. street disorders, destruc-
a'void. costly interruptions- and conversions priority;" and whose leadership includes NLG . tioll of private- and publicproperty,. and
and'wiil be willing to make capital' invest- members and totalitarian Marxist-Leninists. finally. < by- terrorism . perpetrated . by anents based on those assurances. Within -- American Friends Service Committee ' Cuban-trained revolutionaries - -~- ~- n
That framework, we can saviors the obvious
AFS
(
C), which has expressed approval of the - The -NCGS steering committee:_con=
;ienonts'of constructing refining facilities Vietcong, Red Chinese, Palestine Liberation - si;tedOf
In NewEngland andthereby eliminate future O
. ' "
a
i
ti
' Kh
e
za
rg
n
on
m
r Rouge and Cuban tom
ananlfestatioas'of the current price, dfsad- munists efforts to ereaia cnrtia,ialn:~ a?a Bob Borosage, Washington, D.C.; NLG
l
ch
ex
w- revO
u ionary terrorlsrh on - -- -^--_ .,- tionat - a
'
'vasty access to refineries
: Security Studie es-CLASS; :' and
the grounds that the?oppression caused by
C
aucus,.- we have vote the voice and distributed a manual, Intelligence Abuse and for Policy Studies-IPS: r - ?.?r - ;;-. .:?.:
(oru.m to present our ideas +o the rear nr ......- r
--l r,-l.-- -.-'-~ ---..-.-- _ . .. - - . __ -
o
of a national en.ergyPlan, for outright abolition of the CIA, and in ' "-raw- speaker - -; and t;neviag staff " ny; ~- ivew attorne -'forth...eNLG `-
pl for-.New
Lidiee and Gsntiemen, a ,regional energy ternal security function of the FBI and call y,
an is not a viable consideration unteca nrl- in?- for the. outlawing nr- all- clandestine York -Civil Liberties Union' author of
Ideas. to: our . colleagues and push for the de- (CNSS) a project ' of the Fund. for Peace 'CT ""~ = `? . 1:' ? ' ' -
i-nlopntent of an ener
l
n
ti
-
i
L
o
gy p
a
on a na
onal.
nuanced pr
eonard Gr
ncipally by the Field Founds
ssman, Detroit. 1 1 - r:
scale..I hope that we. can-learn from- this tion and staffed from the Institute for Pol- :'.-.Lance Haddtx, Chicago; NLG:= . -?_f =
Knost recent crisis and get on with that"vital,-, icy Studies ?(IPS), a. far-left think-tank -Morton -Halperin,. Washington, D.C.;
4?+.~~i'L, x.'f .r'._"_r. :4 -Ar-hr'Ei~in`r?1 ~i~r~`F?i~fc~c8":J171.7.~7~.d+/Ll'4'A'~7Tll:F~'_1't-'("~'4'~"v~3%1911i~'f'~1'3~`.f1~1'~1?lj'X~?f??. i?.'~?,'"x' w
 CHICAGO 1'RIBUl`iE
Approved For Release 2004I1 fi ~ ArR "-O1315R0002
a needed
?WiHiarrr Rowe'. '?:.
32I IIIND TILE revelations, of CIA ns-
;uasination plots and FBI "black hag?
es a debate over the fu
a
i
la
v
es r
r
ourg
tine nti dons of this country's intelli
gence. agencies. A', recent Washington-'I
ence
lli
t
I
g
e
n
Conference on Controlling the
I
Agencies vented .Lost of the arguments ,1,
resent cotigressional thinking
tin
-
iff
p
g
ec
. on th6 subject.
e of this debate may well.
i
t
'
`
t
com
b
Tlie
l}rs?legislation that drastically changes'; '
thy rules 'by which the United States
ld
?
in-a'Iut re wor
international terror- ?
es
t
ho
ag
r
energy s
? a; ri;,and_village tyrants running nations
olpons
ssessing nucear wea-
_
r..
i
in
our nlaior in-
f
str
c
g
tell?gence agencies has been touched off
b) F. a ;. series of revelations concerning .,i
CIA activities in Chile and illegal spying
t Amercan citizens by the. CIA and
.!,
btuaenis:,proi Wsl; }nn rcyr a,.:,.
those inside "The Company" as f?`the Congress sloes not seem to ue, of a
1
isconsin in196
UniversitYof
nt
d
i
d
.
e
Fa d to'tia tl~e hands of the Presi
famit7 Jewels. In violation of its char-:,s
i :Isyix '{ to
terCIA conducted secret domestic by.-abolishing the authority of the (.
intelligence activities .targeted against ` ` ? ` " `, '. , ` t ' Ynciunt secret political activities aUroad
those who thought. Viet lilam.was }wrong ed inteltigerice professionals as, well as Ina t secs long on nuclear weapons, but
paid s o. _ i 'theirsupportersand critics in and out of `l
and r sYtort.of energy and. clear we lions but
~',In;, Operation Chaos, - over 150 `agent Congress: There -..was ' a, consensus on is that such cover, action -WRI the h be 1`e-
not eliminated, by sharper
sotirces compiled more than 13,000 sthree major areas of likely reform; stricted; such
y _ ;t Fns and CIevelnnecl an index of over a r.;mitinn the :authority:ot the CIA .^`ifcide review.troceduret , . _ .
c
t
Stith espionage. In addition. the CIA illew , flnierican cltizens.. ~~`
of mail a year for 20 years ;a;..- >+ CIA 'Activities withiri , the United States
'sage FBI.` in, its _Cbintelpro operatioiit~ :and .the CIA's former-: General-:'Counsel
e
L
,a? ..
aY rent
i . .. (,y
Yuan legislation which established the CIA in
t
rne
y-
o
a Chicago at
i IviIlfain .Bowe, d counterintelligence arratyst from ISM- .1947 should be amended 16 make clear^; r udicial branch of government to claims
.tz in the Office of the. Assstant Chief ;that the CIA isnot in the "intelligence j office ,those'\vha 'are improperly caught an
inf,Sta/f-for Inteltigence in the Pontagon:business, but rather in the foreign in + giglirothers dra net.
:;tt. ,r: .; ,-: ,;>~ telltgence business = These..chanes :?.t
OtCCR V is ss`sii founded sines
or ?
en
conduc
f
IA
e
t
rom
IIE C
,during the late 1960x, :actively,engaged ivoald proJubkt the C
fibs tact; .L
t o:disriipt hat many:p '
in .secret'.attempfs and a int haostsr function s such as Op .. Lteaai:'did 'notm:bar- intella encei seau '
.u- zii
s een ho
d
i a
? ,.Fi l,also lias'reported.to the Senate.Se-` Atty..Gen. Edwar Lev .yaw lest Committee 'Intelligence that it Live in'-attempting to develop guidelines t;al whims or doing `what they wanted to
conducted 238 burglaries; of "black?bg :. , and .legislation 'to` speli:out the FBI's do ; regardless of the'la~w ''One , essential
jobs", dom stic,;surveillance:-Ilis finale ,;require}Went is: to,have legislation `re
'in connection 'with?its'investiga: role irt.
tion of ' carious ' political :'or anizations proposals''are:expected to establish a , astriding the intelligence agencies contain:,!
n
ental
The 'criminal or, pealties for violations
Senate Subcommitteeon ' Constitu- sliding scale of 'increasing governm
surveillance .of at political activities :. of ! {fie need fo stricter
ice estimated regulation of the
banal Rights; 9f.the `3udiciar( Coirimit~ Americari.citizens based on the internal ' I Fags been clearlyestab
i .1 that'as` ufiMarch: 397
;
L.? f secua`ity,.threatinvolved. Critics fear CISfished an`dT'I'he'Bquestion-uo'iv is-how the
%
genre 3I:.had;almosk 6 5 millipn I melthis ,will not significantly alter ,present ; president and Congr
i.g ess will respond.L' ._:~
ence~indjBVaIUa141}n43fiVeStlgaEl4Tl+ FBI practices'
k. . ` `. ., - Y? .. ?~ .. ir..
Participants at the onE~ince on Con
1'-armec MAY. i.1'. --.'__1' -_
more' specific.. -Ile 'has* proposed.;
neSUC
that na?Elul
:'
s they are grounds d
nl
es
nducted u
5.:be co
? . r ,,;? criimmn.M investigative basis
f?Before- seitsitivo'; domestic':ntelligence';
rne
s... ,____--._rt
Rests' antinciePCL:deirt:?,.,o
ence Advisory,73oard be set up "as a_;
i other`outside check against bureau '
r Gann ' i
us
.0 Creating a }itleaniligful S4'atchdog ?.x
Stole for ;the Congress ; :.:.
s a'
the intelligence. "encies, has: been.. slip
h
ld
.arc.
ou
Congress s
:`-mittee on Intelligence. The.Rockefeller
Commission has recommended this and 'iL
expected that a .similar proposal
llouse and Senate
th
e,
will emanate, from
'. 'Select Coln suttees - on Intelligence as
r_,.
v ores in early 1176_ `i
ir
o
I
:~,,~ Ulienhto ttte. courts
,t
.matter how. specific new statutes, direb-..-1
th
e
" tives, and regulations are iii defining
i
,
es
;;
. proper role of, our intelligence agenc
'i
-_--
f
p
nin
the .
n
A
or o
e
g
trolling the Intelligence A, g% iRe ! r Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 . Approved For ReleaKPOVA$L1701 AP lA4RQW
Event: The Conference Board
New yolk C
Date: January 18, 1977
Time: Reception -- 6:00 p.m. followed by dinner
Heed Press Office Help
to Prepare Text Yes--
Speaking from Text
Hand Out Text
Limited Release
Embargoed Release
Want Press Office to Attend Yes
Press Conference Yes
Need Press Office Help
to Set Up Press Conference Yes
Special Press Assistance Required
No
Na
Comments Group would like Mr. B
lL9h_Q. seek. rasa hJtor,-,ass
leaving the U.N.
Travel Arrangements
Yes
SSES ON TR QVV-THE-R r
~? felt SkOu.14 arrj VP 4 ', Ii61v
b
. 04 ~
I: lir. Vorsx4q#7 or :. I a fall wo II Me + ~OL4.
ver, w-9~l aver. bey ooF.M
Contact: Mr. Randall [phone]
4x n S yJ 4- '" kh L ~ ~ &* nor ~.
foV d F Release 4 DP88-01315R000200260001-7
Place: Members' dinner at the Waldorf Astoria
 n-D
or Release 200,VI11 : 312
12 February 1979
Up in Arms
Protests over a weapons show
.T is annual meeting of the Hyatt Corp.
^ is generally an accommodating affair.
Last week, however, the company's gath-
ering in Chicago became the target of pro-
testers who are up in arms over a con-
ference scheduled later this month in the
O'Hare International Trade and Exhibi-
tion Center and the Hyatt Hotel near Chi-
cago's O'Hare International Airport.
"Defense Technology '79," the con-
ference calls itself. An "arms bazaar," its
foes charge. Whichever, it will bring to-
gether on Feb. 18-21 arms manufacturers,
potential buyers and military strategy ex-
perts from the U.S. and foreign countries,
including the Soviet Union, Egypt and
South Korea. Nearly 60 exhibitors,
among them such U.S. defense manufac-
turers as Beech Aircraft and Boeing Aero-
space, have signed up. Simultaneously, in
the Hyatt Hotel, former intelligence of-
ficials of the U.S. and Britain and mil-
itary strategy specialists from business
and academia will stage a "Conference'
on Strategic Directions." The con erence,
says Chief Sponsor Gregory Copley, ed-
itor of Britain's Defense and Foreign Af-
fairs Publications, will offer strategy ex-
perts the opportunity to discuss the latest,
global and military developments "in a
frank and private exchange of ideas. No
one is going to drive up in a tank."
Opponents of the conference wonder.
Complained Chicago Socialite and Dem-
ocratic Party Activist Marjorie Benton, a
U.S. delegate to last year's U.N. special
session on disarmament: "This is not a
dog show, not a boat show. It's a military
hardware show where they'll be selling ev-
erything from thumbscrews to missiles."
At the Hyatt stockholders' meeting last
week, Benton delivered an impassioned
eight-minute lecture on corporate moral-
ity. Senator Charles Percy and Represen-
tative Abner J. Mikva have asked the
sponsors to cancel the exhibition.
Letter writers have protested to Hy-
att and Illinois' Rosemont Village, which
owns the Exposition Center. The group,
"Mobilization for Survival," composed of
antinuclear, environmentalist and peace
activists, has threatened a demonstration
if the exhibition takes place. One of the
prospective protesters is Actor and Dis-
armament Delegate Paul Newman.
Such protests have given Hyatt sec-
ond thoughts about allowing the confer-
ence, but cancellation could bring a six-
figure damage suit by the sponsors.
Copley, meanwhile, is standing firm,
perhaps remembering the annoyance he I
suffered when a similar gathering he had I
planned in Miami last year was canceled.
Said he: "This is a conference for pro-
fessionals, and we don't intend to see it
disrupted by emotional amateurs." ^
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 200 i1 YR116 CJ X88-01315R0002002
25 May 1978
Column 7
ey rose to
and -lust. thVil
By Eleanor Randolph
Chicago Tribune Press Service
LVASHiNGTON--John Bradley figured
he'd get a pat on the back at the De-
fense Department. when he warned his
superiors that their computers weren't
working properly.
. Maybe they'd promote him 'for sug-
gesting that in the age of. instant, push-
button war, our President might push
the button and nothing would happen. -:--
least for a little bureaucratic thanks
when he told his boss at the National
Security Agency that taking competitive
bids on some items would save money.
SIMILARLY, DR. J. Anthony Morris
assumed he would be credited with sav
ing lives when he suggested that his
research on swine flu showed that the
vaccination could be a`lot more danger-
ous. than an epidemic that might not
sweep the nation as predicted.
.. But Bradley, Floyd, Morris and about i
250 others, now recognized. as govern.
ment "whistleblowers," were wrong.
Floyd was eased out . of the NSA.
Bradley moved from senior project engi- ti
neer of the. Defense Communication
Agency to a kind of staff clerk. He has
since left, cannot find. another job, and
has lost about 50 pounds.
Six. days after .Morris warned about
swine flu, he was fired..
"LIFE' FOR the whistleblower is
hell," said Ralph Stavins, who runs the
Government Accountability Project that
helps whistleblowers. "The problem with
most of these people.is that they really
act out of- conscience, and they don't
realize that there is punishment.
"There is no easy road to truth and
'justice, but we would like to see if we,
t;an ease that punishment."
As part of that effort to ease whatever
suffering occurs when somebody tattles
on the bureaucracy and loses his or her
job, Stavin ran a "whistleblower's con-
ference" last weekend at the Interna-
tional Inn in Washington.
Approved
25X1
IT WAS THE second such conference
and part of a growing effort by the Gov-
ernment Accountability Project, a Ralph
Nader operation, to find money, legal
assistance, and.sometimes even psychi
atric help for people who have spoken
out against the bureaucracy.
"Whistleblowers was originally organ-
ized two years ago to provide help for
government employes in security jobs,"
Stavins said during a break in the con-
ference. "There were the people who
were ostracized and blacklisted because
any conflict with a boss can be deemed
a threat to national security."
The services of Stavins' organization
were expanded, last year to include rea
ulatory agencies. Now Stavins says that.
most whistleblowers come from the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; the Department of Housing and
Urban Development; the Department of
Transportation; the Department of En-
ergy; and the Energy Research and De-
velopment Agency.
"NOW . WE TAKE about three new
people a week," Stavins said. "We get
many niore inquiries than that, but I'd
say about half of them have what we
call `private grievances' or what you
icall whining-
"They may be legitimate, some of the
private matters, but we only take people
whose whistleblowing somehow embod-
ies the public interest--something which
concerns health, safety or freedom."
Most of the 50 or.. so . whistleblowers
who came to last weekend's conference
were indeed concerned with health, safe-
ty, and freedom, but it was still an odd
mix. There were idealistic young people
and older workers ' who finally had had
enough. There were people who blew the
whistle because the government was im-
moral and those who spoke out because
it was inefficient.. '
THERE WERE the representatives of'
the 1960s, like Daniel Elisberg. Ellsberg j
blew the whistle on. Viet Nam with the
Pentagon Papers, and last weekend corn
tinued to pipe away so long on his now
famiiiar.theme that Stavins had to de-
mand heatedly that Ellsberg relinquish
the microphone.
But there were also those who would
appear to be conservative in the classic
sense. Frank. Snepp, the CIA analyst
who is being sued by the Justice Depart-
ment for writing a book about the fall of
Saigon, believed that the military and
diplomatic officials muffed 'their job
there.
Snepp's argument is that the' CIA was
forced to leave to the mercy of the
North Vietnamese numerous Vietnamese
who worked under cover for the CIA.
"I *A111 PRO-CIA," Snepp told the con-
ference. "I like tott.irik there is a dif-
ference between whistleblowing and
demolition work. Helping agents out of 1
the country is a matter of honor and ;
pragmatism."
Others, 7.-k former CIA agent John
Stockwell, acted own sense
of conscience. Stockwell, an agent for 12
years, began to worry that secret CIA
operations in Angola, where he ran the
agency's task force, were immoral and
.would not be tolerated by the majority
of the American people.
So, he resigned and wrote a book.
"IF THIS BOOK is. wildly successful
for three years, it won't make as. much
as I would have made in that period
working for the CIA," Stockwell told one
questioner who figured he was tattling
on the agency for fame and money.
"Moreover, I have been told to save
what I do. make because I may need it
for legal fees against the government."
.
So far, Stockwell has not been sued.
Justice Department officials said: they
are not going to move on Stockwell until j
they see what happens to their ease
against Snepp. Snepp has been sued for
breach of contract for writing a book
after agreeing as a CIA agent not to do'l
While some of the - ?'vhistleblowers 1
make money and names for themselves 1.
by fighting the bureaucracy, mast don't,
according too Stavins.
For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R
LONDON SUNDAY TIMES
21 May 1978
Threat to
the leaky
spooks
exposed the doings of anything ....?. _,_
from the CIA to the Food and Snepp: rule breaker
Drugs and Administration have
information that they often lie
either resigned or, at worst, been and cheat in making up their
sacked. The whistleblowers say reports-perhaps for personal
the new threat is embodied in, advancement-and the result is
the spying convictions passed'. bad intelligence.
on Friday.on a former US Infor-- Snepp, who was one of the!
mation. Agency employee, agency's 4,500 covert officers, is!
Ronald Humphrey, and a Viet- already facing a civil suiti
nantese expatriate, David brought by the government for;
Truong. breaching the CIA's " contract of
They were found guilty of secrecy" and for failing to sub-
theft of government documents mit his recent book on the final
and " conspiracy to injure the, days of the American presence
national defence of the United in Saigon for approval before,
States." Humphrey admitted that publication.
he took classified documents and; It is widely assumed that, if.
gave them to Truong, who., the government wins the case, ie4'
passed them to a courier for the! will pursue a case against Stock-
communist Vietnamese govern well. Not only did he'not have;
meat. They did so in the hope. the CIA's permission to publish;
of "improving relations" be- he has also admitted - unlike
tween the two countries. Snepp - that his book on the
But the courier was a double. covert operation during the
agent paid by the CIA. The two Angolan civil war contained
face life sentences.for comnmit classified information.
ting what Humphrey at least One aim of the conference,
considered was only a State De-I sponsored by, the 'Institute of
partment security violation. Policy studies, a radical Waslt
The whistleblowers now fear: ington group, was to inform gov-1
that by " passing on " even the erment employees about the best 1
most innocuous official docu-' ways of policing bright-handed
ments to a journalist, they might bureaucrats. " There is a direct,
risk facing tough sentences-as link between the pursuit of free-
they would in Britain. dons and blowing the whistle on
The spy convictions came in! government injustice," said
the middle of a whistleblowers'; Ralph Stavins of the institute's!
conference on national security. "government accountability pro-
It was attended by such well-I jest."
known whistleblowers as Daniel All three former CIA officers!
Yllsberg (whose Pentagon Papers) said they basically still support;
exposed the origins of the Viet-, the CIA in its legitimate activi
nails war), Frank Snepp, one-' ties. They consider the Russians
time CIA station chief in Saigon;' to be a greater threat than the
and John Stockwell, who last; wrongdoings of the CIA. But
week blew the lid off the CIA's; America was no good at "little
covert action in Angola. ; covert wars", said Stockwell,
But the conference spotlightij as Angola had shown.
was on Snepp, Stockwell: and,! As to his possible punishment,
another ex-CIA officer, Donald Stockwell said: "It is a horrible.
Jordan, who was recently fired, thing to punish someone who
by Admiral Stansfield Turner,: exposes a crime against human-
director of the CIA, for suggest- ity. It is beyond the bounds of
ing in public that the CIA ridi Sanity. It is certainly un
itself of its "soft files." Those american ".
are the oneg 1 t M + ricer' lease 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
citizens of 1IS~eHH~~ff itR~c~
intelligence, and not listed in,
the CIA computer.
"The agency may. have a
bundle of documents on you but
you can never see them, even
under the freedom of informa-
tion Act," says Jordan, " because,
according to the computer, they
don't exist."
The problem with the whole.
intelligence gathering operation,:
lie added, 'is that agents get so.
used to lying and cheating to get;
By Peter Pringle
Washington
AMERICAN whistleblowers 7-
the growing band of people in
-government offices who expose
abuses of , power and bureau-
cratic wrongdoing - see them-
selves as seriously threatened for
the first time by the equivalent
of the British Official Secrets
Act.
 25X1
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R1
ARTICLE APPEARED
ON PAGE A-3
die 6lowers
SM, 4y i ~~g. r e nd'...
By Ward Sinclair
Wasbicu[.on Poet Statt Writer
Whistleblowing,. that often lonely,
conscience-driven act of calling the
boss to book, has become enough of
an institution that conferences now
are held on the subject.
Just such a conference has been go-'
ing on here this weekend, involving
some of the biggest names in recent
whistleblowing-Ellsberg, Stockwell,
Snepp, Conrad, Mancuso and others
of lesser renown.
This second annual session was
staged by the Institute for Policy!
Studies, which attracted several bull-'
dred government and congressional
workers to hear case histories and be
encouraged to blow their whistles.
It takes some hours of listening to
these vignettes' and hearing the sto-1
ries of punishment and retaliation to
catch a common strain that runs
through them all.
Your average whitleblower turns
out not to be the ranting kook of pop-
ular perception. More often, he is a
frustrated agency employe who goes.
public because he believes his superi-
ors are suppressing the truth.
And, just as often, he suffers perse-
cution, relegation to the bureaucratic
deep-freeze or outright firing for hav=
inn :one:outside the agency channels
that did not respond to 'him in the
first place.
If there were any central tone run-)
ning through this conference, it 'was
underlined by Morton Halperin, the!
former national security aide whose
telephone was illegally tapped by a
Nixon administration that thought he
was a "leak:'
Halperin warns dthe whistleblowers
that their peril is likely to be greater
under the Carter administration,
which he said "has succeeded where
Richard Nixon failed. "
Halperin and others said the Carter
THE W.ASiIINGTON POST
21 May 1978
ment information a crime or at least a
breach of nebulous contract.
"Any last remaining hope'that any-
body had that this administration
would be different is gone," he said.
"If the enemy is not us, he at least is
always the man in the White House."
Sen. James Abourezk (D-S.D.), spon-
sor of a strong bill to protect the du
process rights of whistleblowers, used
even tougher language.
"This administration has cynically
ignored its campaign promises in this
area," Abourezk said. "It-ignores the
evils of the past. It refuses to prevent
a repetition of such evilS.-
'41 can only conclude that this ad-;
ministration, without a'doubt, is delib-1
erately pursuing a Nixonesque policy
of retaliation, intimidation and sup.l
press.ion of whistleblowers, their reve-
lations and their complaints," he said.
Moreover, he added, "In agency of-'
ter agency the same thugs who terror-)
ized government workers- and be-
trayed the public trust under Nixon
and Ford are doing business as. usu-
He said the Civil Service Commis-l,
sion "has run a whistleblowers' grave-I
yard over there. No honest civil serv-
ant worthy .of the name would either-
trust or' seek out the commission in
the interests of fair play and justice."
Abourezk said that more than fair
play is involved, citing the troubles of
Frank Snepp and John Stockwell, the !
former CIA men who wrote books i
critical of agency operations Irv. Viet-
nam and Anclola.
"Snepp and Stockwell did not sign
away their First Amendment rights," J
he said. "The agency is not the mas-f
ter, nor the employe its slave."
The two, among the more cele-
brated whistleblowers of the _ year,',
were on hand together Friday evening
as panel members to discuss their
)
-- Snepp said he agrees generally that
White House.. is moving directly!
against whistieblowjopd\ml'p4elease 2004/11/01
by a series of actions, Including sup.
port of a criminal code revision, de-1
signed to male disclosure of govern- I
"the. government. is tightening the
screws on the intelligence commu-
nity'but that potential whistle blow-1111
ers at the CIA have a responsibility to
"stand up and face- the legal conse-
quences of their actions as well:'
Like Snepp, Stockwell professed i
strong belief in the intelligence-ga.th-
ering function of the CIA. But. be said:
that bungled covert operations
abroad, such as the one in Angola. that I
he wrote about, do the United States
more harm than good.
"Whistleblowers should be given
support and help;' said Stockwell,
who resigned from the CIA in April
1977 after heading the agency's An-
gola task force: j
Daniel . Eilsberg, -. the rnan who
leaked the Pentagon Papers to the
press, talked along the same lines,
urging whistleblowers not to let per'
sonal risk outweigh the need to have
all sides of public issues aired pubs-
licly. . . . .
He was explaining his latest civil
disobedience activity, outside a nu-
clear arms facility near Denver, and
talking about the arms race when, od.
dly enough. the whistle was blown on
him. ` . ;.
Conference coordinator Ralph Sta-
vins warned Ellsberg his. time was.
running out, then finally stopped hinT.
"But we're talking about the way
the world may end," Ellsberg pro-
tested as he walked off, his story left
hanging in the balance. - ; ,_, ,_1
 ARTICLE AP EARFA WO
~N PACproved For Releas
' ISTLE L ' Ems'. REASSURE
BY John F. Barton ernment has no right to use ter
.
UnitedPreosinternaLional employment as "a prior restr
day he has introduced legislation to His legislation would estabii
"
protect
whistleblowing" Federal em- special counsel empowered to
ployees from reprisal if than ro.,a~l action against federal officials o
ment activities. tleblowers, including those within the
"No one has lifted a finger' to pro- intelligence agencies.
tect whistleblowers" despite Presi- Abourezk was loudly applauded by
dent Carter's campaign promises toe audience, many of whom said
do sa, Abourezk, D-S.D., told several their careers had been hurt because
hundred present and former federal they tried to publicize large cost
employees at a Whistleblower's overruns. or. government ? activities
harmful to the ublic health.
Conference on National Security," P
He said those who try to expose Citing cases of wyis ressur ere sub-
wrongdoing or ineptitude within the jected to retaliatory pressure, Abou-
intelli$ence and national security rezk said Ernest Fitzgerald, a De-
agencies are particularly vulnerable, fense Department official who once
"Dissenters who appear in na- weapons ized huge cost overruns in pu 11
tional
securit a entree are sub'ect weapons projects, "'now rots away
to an end to their careers," said . his professional career in the attic of
Abourezk. "Either you are com- the Pentagon."
pletely loyal to the agency, right cr "FRANK SNEPP and John Stock-
wrong, or you are out. well did not sign away their First
"CONTRARY TO WHAT this ad-. Amendment-rights," he said in refer-
ministration says, whistleblowers ence to two former CIA employees
are fired. They can be certain only of who are in trouble for writing books
one thing: monumental legal bills." critical of CIA operations in Vietnam
The senator argued that the gov- and Angola.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
8IA=RDP88-01315R000200
 BALTTMORE SUIT
ARTICLE 4.. PR Approved ForRelea9E.2 /IM$: CIA-RDP88-x13 5R000200260001-7
O -44G F
thistle-blowers to discuss the perils of leaking data',
wasntngton iiureau of The Sun
Washington-Whistle-blowers from the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Atomic
Energy Commission, the military and oth-
er organizations are gathering here this
weekend for- a conference on the hazards
of leaking secret information to the pub-
lie.
'Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Penta-
gon papers to the press in 1971, has prom-
ised to open the conference by blowing the
whistle on some government activity dur-
ing his keynote address tonight. In addi-
tion to Mr Ellsberg the 7 P M session in
room B338* of the -Rayburn House Office
Building, will include John Stockwell and
Frank Snepp, former CIA agents who will
discuss secret CIA activities in Angola and
Vietnam.
The conference will continue tomorrow
at the International Inn with a panel of
whistle-blowers from the.Chicago Police
Department; the military and a variety of-
government -agencies. -The conference is
sponsored by` the Government Account..
ability Project of the Institute for Policy
Studies. Admission is $25. ~,
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Re ase 2004/11/01
CI RDP88-013000200260001-7
Edited by: epor ofwK
Jonathan Moore
James C. Thomson, Jr.
Martin Linsky New England Conference on
Michael Jozef Israels Conflicts Between the
Media and the Law
September, 1 974-Septem974-September, 1976
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Report of the
New England Conference on
Conflicts Between the
Media and the Law
September, 1 974-September, 1976
Edited by:
Jonathan Moore
James C. Thomson, Jr.
Martin Linsky
Michael Jozef Israels
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Co-Sponsors:
Approved For Rele se 2004/1 01 : C RDP 8-0 315R 0200260001-7
flew England ton Terence on
Jonathan Moore
Director, Institute of Politics
John F. Kennedy School of
Government
Harvard University
James C. Thomson, Jr.
Curator
Nieman Foundation
Harvard University
Conflicts Between the
Media and the Law
Steering Committee:
John A. Burgess
Attorney
Burgess & Normand
Montpelier, Vermont
Thomas W. Gerber
Editor and Assistant Publisher
Concord Monitor
Concord, New Hampshire
Timothy Leland
Sunday Editor
The Boston Globe
Boston, Massachusetts
Peter R. Martin
Vice President of Public Affairs
and News
WCAX-TV
Burlington, Vermont
Don Noel
Senior Correspondent, WFSB-TV
Hartford, Connecticut
Warren B. Rudman
Former Attorney General
Concord, New Hampshire
Jon A. Lund
Former Attorney General
Augusta, Maine
Sidney Wernick
Associate Justice of the Maine
Supreme Judicial Court
Portland, Maine
Joseph Weisberger
Presiding Justice
Rhode Island Superior Court
Providence, Rhode Island
Martin Linsky
Editor, The Real Paper
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jonathan Moore
Director, Institute of Politics
John F. Kennedy School of
Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
James C. Thomson, Jr.
Curator, Nieman Foundation
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Acknowledgments
Funds for the New England Conference on Conflicts Between the Media
and the Law were made possible through a grant from the Ford Founda-
tion matched by local contributions from New England. We are grateful
for the contributions of the Boston Globe, the Connecticut Bar Associa-
tion, the Guy Gannett Publishing Company, the Ho/yoke Transcript-
Telegram, the New Bedford Standard-Times, the New Hampshire Crime
Commission, the Office of the Rhode Island State Court Administrator,
the Rhode Island Commission to Study Criminal Procedures, and WCAX-
TV, Burlington, Vermont.
In addition to our gratitude to the members of the Steering Committee
and the leaders of the case discussions, our appreciation is extended to
the following individuals for their fine contributions in coordinating
meetings and preparing report materials: Sarah Fitzgerald, Betsy Gilli-
gan, Elizabeth Goddard, Suzanne Hilton, Frances Huze, and Deborah
Katz.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For ReI ass 20044/n1D$: CIA-RDP88-013158000200260001-7
1 Introduction
7 Recommendations
13 Summary Report of the New England Conference
23 Questionnaire Evaluation
35 Background Inventory Paper
51 Case Studies
65 Participants
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Rele1 3Q 0-41d/ ICfMP88-01315R000200260001-7
Why two years of New England meetings about media-law conflicts?
To some, such conflicts would seem inevitable and healthy, one symptom
of a free, dynamic society. The press, they would argue, must adopt an
adversary posture in order to play its proper role as watchdog of the na-
tion. The danger, they would stress, is not conflict or collision, but collu-
sion-especially with government itself.
Such views have infused and sustained generations of American journal-
ists. And much good has resulted from the media's independence: the
tradition of open criticism, the exposure of corruption, the reform of
institutions. Yet the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press is only
one of the rights rooted in the Constitution and nurtured through years
of judicial interpretation and Congressional legislation. The rights to a
fair trial and to personal privacy are also protected by the Constitution,
and in recent years these rights have come into considerable conflict with
the rights of a free press. Consider the record:
-Despite the Supreme Court's strong decision against gag rules in the
1976 Nebraska case, courts are still very much in the business of trying
to control the release and publication of courtroom information, even,
in some cases, of information revealed in open court.
-Tensions between the interest in personal privacy and the interest in
reporting what people want to know are on the increase: libel law is in
a constant state of reassessment, gossip journalism is in vogue, computer-
ized data banks have provided a whole new world of concentrated per-
sonal information about individuals' private lives, and several states are
agonizing over questions of sealing or destroying arrest and other records
previously lodged in the public domain.
-Journalists often are expected to reveal confidential sources, and they
are still threatened with jail if they protect them.
-The Congress has been struggling for some time with proposals, on the
one hand, for an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act to
control the flow of information to the people from their government, and
on the other, for "shield laws" to prohibit the jailing of journalists who re-
fuse to disclose their sources.
-Finally, all this is going on during, and partly in reaction to, a period of
unprecedented activism by the press in the aggressive pursuit of informa-
tion.
It has become clear, therefore, that the First Amendment's guarantees,
and the survival of a free press, are more contingent upon a national
climate of understanding and acceptance than upon any absolute and ir-
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
1
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
revocable Constitutional ordinance. One central factor in the perpetuation
of such a climate is the behavior of the bar and bench in America.
Lawyers, journalists, and most judges are not required to stand for elec-
tions, to submit themselves to plebiscites on their promises or perfor-
mance. Yet they wield great power in determining the shape and direc-
tion of American society. Inevitably, without recourse to any public
referee, they encounter each other in situations of acute antagonism. The
press can attempt to sway public opinion in its favor. But the courts re-
tain ultimate power and authority, and their decisions can silence and
imprison journalists, and-as a result of the soaring costs of litigation-
constrain media organizations by the threat of financial ruin.
It is the socially costly potential of such media-law conflicts that has
persuaded many observers that some alternatives should be sought to
all-out combat, alternatives worked out through efforts at mutual educa-
tion, conciliation, and self-restraint within and between the two groups.
In the absence of such efforts, it is predicted by some that freedom of
the press, as we know it in America, will gradually disappear.
In early 1974, Fred W. Friendly of the Ford Foundation proposed a
pilot project in media-law dialogue. In June of that year, a group of
New England reporters, editors, publishers, lawyers, prosecutors and
judges gathered in Chatham, Massachusetts, under the auspices of the
Ford Foundation, The Boston Globe, and the Nieman Foundation, to
consider ways of resolving, or at least better understanding, the conflicts
between the media and the legal system other than in the contentious
atmosphere of the courtroom. The principal recommendation of that
conference was to continue the dialogue throughout New England, in
order to involve more people at the local level, and perhaps even begin
to build a consensus around approaches to some of the issues.
Since then, under the leadership of Jonathan Moore, Director of the
Institute of Politics at Harvard, and James C. Thomson, Jr., Curator of
the Nieman Foundation, and with funding from both the Ford Founda-
tion and local sources, the New England Conference on Conflicts Be-
tween the Media and the Law has sought to fulfill the Chatham mandate.
There have been five sub-regional conferences: in April, 1975 at Man-
chester, New Hampshire; May, 1975 at Boston; June, 1975 at Lakeville,
Connecticut; and September, 1975 at Amherst, Massachusetts and New-
port, Rhode Island. In June, 1976, the project's Steering Committee, to-
gether with those who had organized the conferences as well as some
knowledgeable persons who had not previously participated in the sub-
regional conferences, met at Osgood Hill in North Andover, Massachu-
setts, to assess what had taken place and to consider what proposals
should be made.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
2
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The recommendations which follow are specific, concrete and deserve
broad attention, but standing alone they do not tell the whole story of
the New England Conference experience-of the efforts over the past
two years of scores of men and women, working lawyers, judges and
journalists who have come together in the spirit of open inquiry to deal
with areas of mutual concern.
On the positive side, the New England Conference achieved its greatest
success in the pursuit of its most limited goal. People who came to the
sub-regional meetings expressed overwhelming support for their value
in dramatically increasing awareness and understanding of the issues.
Meeting with members of their own professions, participants found both
that they shared problems and differed in suggested solutions. Judges,
lawyers, and journalists who had never spoken in a non-litigious situation
were stimulated to appreciate each other's roles and responsibilities, ex-
change ideas, and sort out differences in an informal atmosphere.
No participant could have come away from one of these meetings with-
out a better understanding of the other side's point of view. And no
participant should have come away without making an honest reassess-
ment of his or her own professional instincts. We asked ourselves ques-
tions which are not often raised, and we realized, under scrutiny from
other points of view, that the answers were not as simple as we had
thought them to be.
Some individual quotes taken from the sub-regional conferences suggest
both the nature of the problem and the vitality of the dialogue:
A television journalist: "These are areas where we are right and the
courts are wrong and there is no compromise."
A judge: "Freedom of the press is not an absolute freedom, not an un-
limited freedom."
Another judge: "Make all the rules you want affecting the press but
they'll go get the story and print it anyway; and that's the game,
there's nothing moral or amoral about it."
A lawyer: "Along with the press's obligation to protect us against the
misbehavior of a trial judge are the obligations to protect the right to a
free trial and to preserve the liberty of its citizens."
Another lawyer: "I don't think any public figure has a right to privacy."
A publisher: "We are the final judge."
A judge to a publisher: "Nobody elected you."
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
An editor: "There are some things in life which are anti-social even if
they don't violate the law."
A lawyer for a newspaper: "To hell with verification, print the story and
we'll go for a law suit."
A reporter: "Whether or not a reporter has committed a crime to get a
story should be of no concern to his editor or publisher."
We also learned from the unique grass roots focus of our project that
media-law conflicts are not perceived to be as great a concern at the local
level as they seem to be nationally and in the larger metropolitan centers.
This is attributed to a greater incentive and opportunity to work out prob-
lems in a cooperative spirit, as well as to an unduly cozy relationship be-
tween the press, lawyers and judges, within a smaller region or state. The
greater familiarity among contending participants in the areas where a
sense of community is shared does not eliminate the conflicts, but it may
make them less intense.
On the negative side, the two-year experience fell short of some of our
most optimistic goals. First, there was little follow-up. For most partici-
pants, the dialogue begun by the New England Conference came and
went; there was no organized local response to the sub-regional confer-
ences. Second, there seems to be little or no evidence of any change in
the day-to-day world as a result of what we have done. Although the ex-
perience had an impact on the participants as individuals and even on
the way they perform professionally, relations between the media and the
law generally do not seem to be improving. In some respects, the atmos-
phere between judges and journalists seems more contentious than when
we started. But this goal may have been unduly naive, especially in light
of the testimony by many of our participants that such conflict, pro-
vided it does not become destructive, is dynamic evidence that the
process is in healthy equilibrium.
From the conferences themselves we realized that there are two over-
riding problems which permeate the relations between the media and the
law. First, most judges and lawyers do not take the media's First Amend-
ment concerns seriously enough. Therefore, they are more than willing
to whittle them away and to try to balance and compromise them with
other interests in society, even though those interests might not rise to
the level of either a Constitutional amendment or a moral principle.
What judges and lawyers ought to understand is that most journalists
believe in an unfettered press as an article of personal faith, as well as a
part of the Constitution, and as an assessment of their own self-interests.
Most journalists would be willing to go to jail to protect First Amend-
ment considerations, and a realization of that fact ought to convince
skeptics of the seriousness with which those beliefs are held.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Second, however, it is all too clear to us that many journalists have no
standards at all. There are none for the profession as a whole and few
on an institution-by-institution basis. The media is more vulnerable to
images of arrogance and self-righteousness, given the extraordinary
rights conferred by the First Amendment, without their consistent
acknowledgment that Constitutional safeguards are provided for others.
A purely situational ethic, where each individual journalist decides
what his or her personal standards of conduct are going to be on a case-
by-case consideration, is, by definition, not ethical at all. To have ethics,
a person, an institution, or a profession, must have standards that exist
over time, outside of the peculiarities of any particular situation. We
can argue about what the standards ought to be, or whose they ought to
be, or how they ought to be enforced, if at all; but it is hard to argue
with the proposition that there ought to be some if journalists want to
take themselves seriously, ask others to do so, and enjoy Constitutional
protection for what they do.
As we moved toward forging specific recommendations, it was clear
that there were several approaches to take. We could have focused just
on future joint media-law efforts; we could have isolated specific areas
of conflict which seemed capable of being resolved; we could have
turned our attention to the media alone or to the bench and bar alone;
or we could have taken a longer view and talked about educating journal-
ists and lawyers so that these problems might disappear or be ameliorated
in the years ahead.
Our recommendations combine elements of each of these choices. We
hope they will encourage others to join in more ambitious ongoing ef-
forts to increase knowledge, understanding and respect for the various
apparently conflicting but ideally complementing rights and responsibili-
ties of media and legal institutions.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
5
 Approved For Releasft2eco004/1 200260001-7
1 Educational Programs for
Lawyers, Judges and
Journalists
2 Internal Procedures for
the Media
Through undergraduate, graduate and
continuing education, the media and
the legal profession must learn more
about each other's practices. Journal-
ists should be exposed to both sub-
stantive areas of the law, and the struc-
ture and operation of law enforcement
and court systems. Lawyers and judges
should learn more about journalism,
how journalists and their organizations
make decisions, and the responsibilities
of a free press in the American system.
Each news organization should develop
internal procedures for identifying and
dealing with sensitive legal and ethical
issues. This should include assembling
information and fostering internal dis-
cussion of such issues as news-gathering
methods, conflicts of interest, libel, and
the substance of law-related stories. In
addition, each media organization
should develop a decision-making appa-
ratus which insures that important legal
and ethical decisions are made on the
best available information, after consul-
tation among reporters and editors-and
with legal counsel and publishers when
appropriate.
Deans and faculty members of New
England colleges and universities
should integrate these issues into their
existing curricula, both by expanding
present courses and by adding new
ones.
In addition, evening and two to four
week continuing education programs
should be developed. Regular faculty
should be supplemented by practicing
lawyers, judges and journalists.
Media institutions and bar organizations
should participate in the funding of
these programs.
Each news organization should appoint
an internal committee to develop and/
or review procedures for handling legal
and ethical questions which arise in
news-gathering and publication.
Each new employee of any news organi-
zation should receive instruction in that
organization's standards of professional
conduct.
News organizations in New England
should share with each other the internal
procedures they have already developed
and may be developing over the next
few years, in order to highlight problems
and suggest alternative solutions rather
than to prescribe general rules.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Media organizations should examine Editors and program directors should
each other's performance as well as establish internal ombudsmen and ex-
their own. They should debate their ternal media critics, including better
own practices in print and on the air, opportunities for reader and listener
and assess the general quality of the participation.
practice of journalism locally, re-
gionally, and nationally. Reader and
listener input should be part of this
process.
A few larger news outlets have estab-
lished in-house ombudsmen or critics,
and some feature guest critiques of the
media in their pages or programs. These
activities should be expanded. Each
media outlet should act as a journalism
review, just as the media review con-
certs, plays, and films.
High quality media criticism can in-
crease the public's capacity to under-
stand and appreciate good journalism.
This would foster competition and im-
prove the quality of journalism in the
best free-market tradition. Above all,
it would enhance public confidence in
journalists as people who can discuss
openly their own humanity and failings.
The traditions of the First Amendment
are best upheld by a public which under-
stands how and why journalists make
news and editorial judgments, and a
press which is willing to have its judg-
ments withstand public scrutiny. A vig-
orous press should take strength from
such dialogue in an open society.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
8
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
4 Procedures for the Legal
Profession in Dealing with
the Media
Without compromising their responsi-
bilities to their clients and to the legal
process, lawyers and judges should be
more open in dealing with the press and
public. There should be a maturing of
the legal understanding of the signifi-
cance of an open legal process, and of
the press's responsibility for inform-
ing the public about the conduct of it.
The legal profession already has some
guidelines for dealing with the media
in the Code of Professional Responsi-
bility. Some of these guidelines are use-
ful, others are less appropriate to the
present climate of public interest in
legal affairs, and some have come under
constitutional attack.
Leaders of state bar associations should
review pertinent portions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (in con-
nection with media representatives) and
should consider offering new guidance
to lawyers and judges for on and off
the record comment, both on pending
legal proceedings and on legal ques-
tions in general. Further, they should
play a leadership role in stimulating in-
creased attention to these issues in the
legal profession as a whole.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
9
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
5 Media and Law Enforcement
Cooperation
New England media representatives
and law enforcement officials should
consult locally to establish procedures
for voluntary cooperation where
journalistic self-restraint is essential to
the health and safety of witnesses,
victims, law enforcement officials, or
others involved in a criminal investi-
gation. In such situations, the volun-
tary cooperation of journalists should
not be enlisted to conceal official in-
competence or wrongdoing, or to make
them agents in law enforcement. How-
ever, the journalist can and should aid
in protecting the law enforcement
process by his concern for the safety of
individuals involved in that process.
Law enforcement authorities should be
cognizant of the necessity for the pub-
lic to know and understand why re-
strictive measures are taken. Top
policy-making officials in both the
media and law enforcement should be
informed about and involved in any
arrangements for voluntary coopera-
tion in specific cases.
Editors, news-directors, police chiefs,
and prosecutors in each community
should consult periodically on mutu-
ally satisfactory procedures for the
implementation of this recommenda-
tion.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
10
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
6 Free Press and Fair Trial:
Directions for Future Study
To safeguard the important constitu-
tional rights of fair trial and free press,
the bench, bar and media of New Eng-
land should develop procedural guide-
lines for resolving conflicts between the
important constitutional rights of
free press and fair trial.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court deci-
sion on restraint orders leaves unre-
solved many such areas of conflict.
Under this decision, there remain some
limited circumstances in which a re-
straint order against media reporting of
a criminal trial could withstand consti-
tutional attack. Some conflict between
the rights of a free press and fair trial is,
of course, inevitable, unresolvable, and
even healthy. Nonetheless, unduly esca-
lated conflict can cause harm to both
rights. For the present, some restraint
orders will continue to be issued and
litigated. The best means of avoiding
restraint orders remains voluntary self-
restraint on the part of the bench, the
bar, and the media.
Guidelines might include suggested vol-
untary measures which could serve as
alternatives to the issuance of a restraint
order, guidance on the kind and timing
of publicity which is most likely to
prejudice a fair trial irreparably, pro-
cedures for affording the press a hearing
prior to the issuance of any proposed
restraint order, suggestions for limiting
the scope and duration of any such
order, and a recommended procedure
for expediting appellate review so that
publication does not become moot be-
fore the legal questions are decided. In
addition, the results of ongoing research
into juror attitudes and the effect of pre-
trial publicity on jurors may have an im-
portant influence on future policy in
this area.
Existing guidelines for resolving conflicts
between the rights of free press and
fair trial should undergo continuous re-
view and updating as they are affected
by experience and court decisions.
New guidelines should be developed
under bench/bar auspices where such
guidelines do not presently exist.
If the initiatives described above do not
occur, a continuing cooperative organi-
zation, such as the one recommended by
this Report, should develop model
guidelines.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
11
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
7 New England News Council
8 Continuing Activities
The media, the bench and the bar, as
well as members of the public, should
form a New England regional "News
Council." Such a council would be
modeled on existing local, state, and
national news councils: groups of jour-
nalists, lawyers, and laymen who re-
view media performance and who hear
specific disputes in areas such as fair-
ness and accuracy, access to the press,
and media-law conflicts, but whose de-
cisions are in the form of recommenda-
tions or admonitions only. A New Eng-
land News Council could take up com-
plaints arising in local media, which the
National News Council now hears only
where they are deemed of "national
significance."
We propose formation of a New England
bench, bar and media organization that
will:
-Follow-up recommendations of the
New England Conference, and consider
other recommendations;
-Broaden "consciousness-raising" ef-
forts among lawyers, judges, and jour-
nalists including local meetings among
the bench, bar, and the media in the
format of the Socratic method of prob-
lem presentation;
-Attempt to increase public under-
standing of these issues, perhaps by an
annual public forum addressing a major
contemporary issue of conflict between
the media and the law;
-Stimulate bar and journalistic associa-
tions to take actions with respect to
these problems.
Regional journalistic and bar/bench
organizations should cooperate in the
creation of a New England News
Council.
Alternatively, statewide and metro-
politan organizations should consider
implementing the same idea on a
smaller scale.
The New England Conference on Con-
flicts Between the Media and the Law
will explore with individuals, organiza-
tions, and potential funding sources, the
formation of a continuing organization
of bench, bar and media representatives
in New England.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
12
 Approved For Relesu2rOn04/ Oat - I Kw 881$~5RQQQ2Q( 6~Q01-7 p OT
New England Conference
The New England Conference on the Conflicts Between the Media and
the Law in 1974-76 sponsored meetings throughout the New England
region of judges, lawyers and journalists for the purpose of discussing
issues of conflict among them.
The Conference had three aims:
1
To raise the sensitivity level of all participants about their own profes-
sion and their problems;
2
To educate each profession to the other's needs and priorities; and
3
To stimulate the desire for continuing the dialogue.
A total of almost 200 participants in these sessions were selected through
a broad survey of knowledgeable persons. Invitations were offered to
those identified as thoughtful and respected members of their professions
and their communities, and were also based in part on the interest in hav-
ing geographical and professional distribution. Judges ranged from local
trial-court judges to State and Federal appellate court judges. Lawyers
were local and state practitioners including prosecutors, defense lawyers,
and attorneys for media organizations. Journalists represented for the
most part town and small city press and broadcast stations-publishers,
station managers, and editors as well as reporters and commentators.
The New England Conference used a common basic format: law profes-
sors, selected because of their ability to use the Socratic method and
their expertise in the areas of law involved, led discussions on cases ex-
posing situations in which different rights and interests came into con-
flict. This method was chosen because it proved to be a uniquely suc-
cessful way to break down communication barriers and place hidden
assumptions on the table, engaging participants to examine their own
roles in light of others'. The cases focused on a number of specific prob-
lems, including whether to disclose a "secret" report obtained by ques-
tionable newsgathering methods, grand jury secrecy, fair trial-free press,
and individual privacy. The cases used in the Socratic sessions are in-
cluded beginning on page 51 of this Report.
It was believed that discussions at these encounters could lead the partici-
pants toward a recognition of the legitimacy of the rights and purposes
of their "adversaries," as representatives of an opposing profession were
often regarded. It was hoped that some consensus among the three pro-
fessions could be reached as to the best means of avoiding destructive
confrontations ultimately threatening to the freedom of the press.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
13
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The New England Conference on the Conflicts Between the Media and
the Law came into being as a result of an initial meeting held at the
Chatham Bars Inn, Chatham, Massachusetts, on June 7, 8 and 9, 1974.
Sponsored by the Ford Foundation, The Boston Globe, and the Nie-
man Foundation, "Chatham I" brought together thirty representatives
of the bench, the bar and the media from throughout New England to
address, outside of the adversary atmosphere of a courtroom, some cur-
rent issues of conflict. The participants were joined by nineteen ob-
servers from outside of New England with a special interest in this area
of concern.
The overriding motivation for the Chatham meeting was outlined by Fred
W. Friendly of the Ford Foundation in his presentation to the initial ses-
sion: If the journalists, the lawyers, and the judges do not begin to under-
stand each other and try to accommodate each other's problems, then
there can be no other outcome from the continuing series of confronta-
tions in the courtroom than a diminution of the degree of freedom which
the press now enjoys in this country. The major part of this conference
consisted of case presentations and general discussion in the manner de-
scribed above. Martin Linsky, an attorney, former state legislator, arid
editor of The Real Paper served as a consultant in planning the confer-
ence and preparing a summary report.
At the close of the Chatham conference, the New England Conference
on Conflicts Between the Media and the Law was formed under the
joint direction of James C. Thomson, Jr., Curator of the Nieman Foun-
dation, and Jonathan Moore, Director of the Institute of Politics at
Harvard. A Steering Committee, comprised of representatives of the
bench, bar and media from all the New England states, the membership
of which is included at the beginning of this report, was named to help
plan and guide the project. The aim of a series of planned sub-regional
meetings was to continue the effort begun at the Chatham conference
bringing news media representatives, from both the press and broadcast
companies, together with judges and lawyers for a consciousness-raising
discussion of the problems besetting the three communities in their re-
lations with each other. By means of such a continuing dialogue, the
effort to assist the two professions in understanding each other would
increasingly succeed, and the nature of various conflicts of legitimate
rights and honest misunderstandings on both sides, would be better
grasped and dealt with. The unique character of this series of meetings,
unlike some others held elsewhere in the United States, was to be its
emphasis on grass roots, local community, and sub-regional involvement,
as distinct from a more "national" emphasis using representatives from
larger metropolitan and media centers.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
14
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The Steering Committee met in September of 1974 to develop program
and funding plans, in August of 1975 to review what had been achieved
and to plan the completion of the project, and in June of 1976 to draft
final recommendations. The project was financed by a Ford Foundation
grant in the amount of $18,000, to be matched on a one-to-one basis by
contributions from New England sources. The Institute of Politics pro-
vided the administrative support. A series of four sub-regional confer-
ences was projected, to be held in various parts of the region: Northern
New England, comprising New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont; South-
ern New England, comprising Connecticut and Rhode Island; the
Greater Boston area; and Western Massachusetts. A fifth conference
was eventually held for Rhode Island.
Funding from New England sources included media organizations,
foundations, public and private interest groups, and contributions by
the Institute of Politics and the Nieman Foundation. The major local
funding came from registration fees for each sub-regional conference,
designed to cover, as nearly as possible, the costs of hospitality at each
meeting. The fees paid to the experts who presented the cases and medi-
ated the discussions, as well as the central costs of clerical assistance,
organization, correspondence, the issuing of invitations, postage, tele-
phone, etc., were covered by the New England Conference office in
Cambridge. There, Mrs. Sarah Fitzgerald was in general charge of co-
ordinating details and providing logistical support and staff back-up for
the sub-regional efforts.
The sub-regional conferences themselves were autonomous, planned by
local sponsors and held at a site chosen by them. The participants were
to be invited from lists compiled by the local sponsors in each area, and
the central office suggested names from its own lists to those proposed
by the local co-sponsors from within the intended sub-regional area.
Once these decisions had been made and the lists compiled, the central
staff sent out the invitations, and prepared the cases and schedules for
distribution at the conference, leaving the sponsors free to concern
themselves with actually running the conference.
Martin Linsky continued as the principal consultant to the project and,
on two occasions, made case presentations. Professors Charles Nesson
and Arthur Miller of the Harvard Law School were each engaged to pre-
sent cases at the meetings; Mr. Nesson performed at four of the sub-
regional meetings and Mr. Miller at two. At the Rhode Island meeting
Professors Abram Chayes and Philip Heymann, also of the Harvard Law
School, presented the cases. Mr. Friendly was a featured speaker at two
of the meetings. Michael Israels began his staff support on the project,
preparing background and draft materials and keeping records, in the
summer of 1975.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
15
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
At every sub-regional meeting, the participants expressed great apprecia-
tion for the conference format as a vehicle for increasing understanding
of the problems and of the differing viewpoints of the other professions.
The great majority of those who attended were open to improvement in
their understanding, and found that the kind of dialogue provided by the
Socratic method of presentation resulted in valuable clarification. Inter-
est was shown in continuing the conversations locally and informally in
the towns and cities of the various states.
The final meeting of the New England Conference took place at Osgood
Hill, North Andover, Massachusetts, on June 18-19, 1976. It involved
members of the Steering Committee, selected sponsors and participants
from the sub-regional meetings, and a few specially invited guests with
unusual expertise who had not previously been involved in the project:
Adam Yarmolinsky, Jack Howard, Kenneth Pierce, and Lewis Wolfson.
The principal purpose of the meeting was to consider draft recommen-
dations prepared by Messrs. Thomson, Moore and Israels. The results of
a questionnaire which had been distributed to all participants in the sub-
regional conferences, evaluating the project and soliciting suggestions on
future action, were also available to those invited to Osgood Hill. A re-
port on this evaluation is contained in the next section of this report.
Martin Linsky keynoted the final meeting, and summarized his findings
as follows: The sub-regional conferences had achieved useful goals,
and should continue to be made available to wider groups, even though
they are not, in themselves, an appropriate vehicle for problem-solving
or issue-resolution. Three central problems dominated the conferences:
a relative lack of sensitivity on the part of the legal profession to the
media's concern for the First Amendment; lack of consistent individual
ethical standards among journalists; and the overwhelming cost of po-
tential litigation as a factor in news decisions. The participants at the
Osgood Hill meeting reviewed and commented at length on the draft
recommendations for a final report of the New England Conference.
During the summer, revised recommendations were distributed to them
in the mail for further comment.
The resulting recommendations may be found in the preceding section of
this report. It is to be stressed, however, that although there was strong
consensus, many of those who reviewed the recommendations had one or
more specific points of disagreement. Consequently, the members of the
Steering Committee and others at the Osgood Hill meeting should not be
held individually accountable for the specific recommendations. There
was strong agreement that continuing dialogue between the bench, bar
and media should take place, and on the desirability of a continuing or-
ganization to motivate and organize such dialogue. This has been em-
bodied in our recommendations.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
16
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The following summaries of each sub-regional conference are based on
the reports presented by the sponsors of each meeting:
Northern New England Sub-Regional Conference
April 4 - 6, 1975
Sheraton-Wayfarer Inn
Bedford, New Hampshire
Co-Sponsors:
Warren B. Rudman
Attorney General of New Hampshire
Thomas Gerber
Editor and Assistant Publisher
The Concord Monitor
Concord, New Hampshire
The participants in this conference were invited from New Hampshire,
Vermont and Maine. Despite a severe snowstorm, only a few of the in-
vited participants (all of them from Vermont, where the storm was most
severe), failed to arrive. Twenty-five editors, TV and press reporters, law-
yers (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) and,five Superior Court
judges gathered in the early evening for dinner and introductory re-
marks by Attorney General Rudman and Mr. Gerber, who described
the purposes of the conference and how it would be conducted. Martin
Linsky, one of the lawyers who was to present a case on the following
day, added a few words.
The next morning, at 10 o'clock, the first case, on free press-fair trial,
was presented by Professor Charles Nesson. After lunch, Martin Linsky
presented a second case on privacy. There was lively interest and par-
ticipation in both sessions.
After dinner that evening, the group was addressed by Fred W. Friendly,
Advisor on Communications to the Ford Foundation and the Edward R.
Murrow Professor of Journalism at Columbia University. Informal dis-
cussions went on into the evening.
At a breakfast meeting on Sunday morning, April 6, a brief assessment
of the occasion was undertaken by Attorney General Rudman, Mr. Ger-
ber, and the participants. It was agreed that it had been an absorbing and
worthwhile event; some made suggestions as to other problems that
might usefully be explored on other occasions; all expressed a desire to
continue meetings and discussions, locally and personally as well as at
gatherings of professional organizations such as this one. The breakfast
ran on for two hours past the official closing time.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
17
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The small size of this conference was a positive factor. Co-sponsor Ger-
ber wrote, "The interchange of ideas increases markedly with smaller
conferences ... I believe the effectiveness factor rises sharply."
Greater Boston Sub-Regional Conference
May 16 - 17, 1975
Headquarters of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Brookline, Massachusetts
Co-Sponsors:
Timothy Leland
Sunday Editor
The Boston Globe
Edward J. Barshak
President
Boston Bar Association
The Greater Boston sub-regional conference opened with a dinner meet-
ing at which James C. Goodale, executive vice president and general
counsel of The New York Times, spoke on the subject of the Pentagon
Papers and the events leading up to and following the decision to publish
them. As a classic modern example of "the media versus the law," this
was a subject of great interest to all participants and provided an ideal
basis for discussion in anticipation of the case presentations that took
place the following day. These presentations, again involving cases on
free press-fair trial and privacy, were led by Professors Charles Nesson
and Arthur Miller, respectively.
There was a strong representation of judges at this Boston meeting, as
there had been in northern New England, and their contributions to the
dialogue were notable. Here, as on other occasions, the reception of the
program by all the guests was enthusiastic, and their absorbed participa-
tion in the discussion was sustained. A total of approximately 50 people
participated.
It was generally agreed at the Greater Boston conference that the dia-
logue should be continued in one form or another, although continuing
meetings might be less likely to come about in cities like Boston than in
smaller locales, where community involvement by both professions is
greater. Some felt that follow-up sessions might be unnecessary after
sub-regional conferences have raised the issues and initiated the dialogue
among key representatives of the media and the law, and that the deter-
mination of general guidelines might be the most profitable follow-up
action in large urban situations.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
18
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Southern New England Sub-Regional Conference
June 13 - 15, 1975
Interlaken Inn
Lakeville, Connecticut
Co-Sponsors:
Don O. Noel, Jr.
Senior Correspondent
WFSB-TV, Hartford, Connecticut
Jon O. Newman
Judge
Hartford, Connecticut
The serious business of the Connecticut conference began with the fair
trial and privacy case presentations by Messrs. Nesson and L.insky. It was
clear that an element was lacking that had been present at both the
previous meetings: a good percentage of interested judges. Judge Need-
ham, of Providence, provided the only representation from the bench,
as well as from Rhode Island. There was a proportionately large number
of lawyers-prosecutors and defenders, and counsel for several leading
newspapers in the state of Connecticut. Several women professionals
were present, from both the media and the law. A total of about 35
people participated in this sub-regional conference.
After a full day's session on Saturday, followed by informal discussion
among the participants, a dinner was held, and the guests were addressed
by Gregory Craig, of the Public Defender's office in New Haven, by
James C. Thomson, Jr., of the Nieman Foundation, and finally by
Robert Yoakum, formerly of the Paris Herald-Tribune.
On Sunday morning the participants again convened for discussion of
possible means of keeping the dialogue alive in their state. The Connec-
ticut Bar Association, which provided financial support for this meeting,
indicated its strong interest in future projects. A number of members of
both the legal and the media communities volunteered to assist Mr. Noel
in making future plans.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
19
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Western Massachusetts Sub-Regional Conference
September 5 - 6, 1975
Conference Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts
Co-Sponsors:
Howard K. Ziff
Professor of Journalistic Studies
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts
Charles Cohen
President
Hampden County Bar Association
Springfield, Massachusetts
The conference for Western Massachusetts was attended by representa-
tives of perhaps the smallest, most grass-roots newspapers and broad-
cast companies of any of the sub-regional meetings-three representa-
tives from WFSB-TV in Hartford provided the exception. As in Connec-
ticut, there was a shortage of judges. There were fewer lawyers, as well,
than there had been at the previous meetings. However, the press and
media representation was very good. There was a total of about 30
attendees.
The conference opened with a dinner on Friday evening, presided over
by Professor Ziff. Fred W. Friendly was the principal speaker of the
evening, and discussed the Schwartz Key Company documentary film
on bookmaking and possible legislative collusion in Boston a few years
ago, and the ethical and legal questions it raised for the broadcasting
producers.
On the following day, Professors Miller and Nesson presented the cases
on privacy and free press-fair trial to the absorption of both communi-
ties. (Mr. Lewis Cuyler, of the North Adams Transcript, subsequently
wrote an account of the discussion and the program of conferences
in general for Editor and Publisher magazine.)
Plans for future action were discussed informally after the meeting had
adjourned. The WFSB-TV participants declared their intention of pro-
ducing a televised panel meeting, or even a televised meeting with a
case presentation on the order of the dialogue they had taken part in
that day; and it was thought that student journalists should take part,
as individuals who would soon enough be facing the issues in their own
practice of the profession.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
20
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Rhode Island Sub-Regional Conference
September 21 - 23, 1975
Sheraton-Islander Inn
Newport, Rhode Island
Co-Sponsors:
Rhode Island Commission to Study Criminal Procedures
Joseph W. Walsh, Chairman
Superior Court of Rhode Island
Joseph R. Weisberger
Presiding Justice
Although the press and media representatives were outnumbered by
judges and members of the bar, their participation was frank, candid
and apparently unhibited by their minority in numbers at this sub-
regional conference. Approximately 60 people attended. Prior to this
meeting, a committee of the press, bar and judiciary had been formed
by the Presiding Justice of the Superior Court. Many members of this
committee were present and reported on their activities in examining
areas of conflict between the media and the law. As Rhode Island is a
small state and most of the media representatives are well acquainted
with the members of the judiciary and with the leading members of the
bar, there seemed to be a minimum of suspicion and distrust.
After a welcoming address by Senator Joseph W. Walsh and brief re-
marks by Dean Ernst John Watts of the National College of the State
Judiciary, the principal speaker of the first evening was Anthony Lewis
of The New York Times. Mr. Lewis, in his address, set the intellectual
keynote which prevailed throughout the conference-that of mutual
understanding and responsibility.
On Monday, case presentations were made by Professors Abram Chayes
and Philip Heymann of the Harvard Law School. Mr. Chayes presented
the case involving free press-fair trial considerations; Mr. Heymann pre-
sented a new case, which was divided into two parts. The first considered
questions including lawyer-client privilege, a reporter's ethics in obtain-
ing information, and editor-reporter relations. The second addressed the
issue of publication of information revealed in a hearing in a criminal
trial from which the jury was excluded, when bench-bar-press guidelines
are in practice.
On Monday evening the attendees were addressed by Jonathan Moore,
Director of the Institute of Politics. Mr. Moore spoke of the first New
England meeting held at Chatham Bars, Cape Cod, outlined the goals
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
21
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
and objectives of the New England Conference, and requested that the
Rhode Island group provide advice the next day on the value of the
project and proposals for the future.
On Tuesday morning the participants held an evaluation and general dis-
cussion. The consensus expressed indicated that, although the perceptions
of the media as to the relative importance of the First and Sixth Amend-
ments were different from those of the bench and bar, each group recog-
nized the importance and significance of the views held by the other.
Media representatives indicated that they expected to continue to exer-
cise voluntary self-restraint to prevent mistrials in important cases.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
22
 Approved For ReleaSou es1 ion n i~~iP1 re 3E V cofrcya h
Questionnaires were sent to the participants of the five New England sub-regional
conferences. Over 50% (89 out of 175) completed copies were returned. They are
revealing and inconclusive, showing a diversity of opinion on most questions and
within each participant category, with the exception of a powerful consensus that
the sub-regional sessions were valuable to the participants in their professional work.
A summary of the comments received as well as selected quotes follow for each of
the questions asked.
Fifty-seven participants believed that
media-law conflicts represent a seri-
ous problem. There was some feeling
that the problem: (a) is moderately
serious only; and, (b) is worse at the
national level and not as significant
locally.
Do you think that media-law conflicts represent a serious problem? Is it
worth worrying about at all?
"Decidedly. They are potentially very
serious, the more so when either party
to them assumes a self-righteousness or
exclusionary attitude. Precisely because
the constitution builds in a conflict of
rights, it is important for the law and
the media to try in good faith to
evolve informal rules whereby these
rights can best be resolved in particu-
lar situations. "
"I would define them more as govern-
ment-public conflicts, with the judicial
branch of government (taking its cue
from the executive) trying more and
more to operate as a private (though
all powerful) instrument, without the
public scrutiny that is essential to the
good health of democratic government."
"There are no serious problems in the
trial courts of Connecticut, An isolated
case may arise every so often and cause
a confrontation. So far these problems
have been resolved quickly and fairly.
In short, there is no systematic at-
tack in this state on the media."
"We have more of a problem with news
reporters from radio and television sta-
tions than we do with newspaper re-
porters, because in Rhode Island, the
newspaper men are better trained in
the specialty of Court reporting.
News gatherers and reporters for
radio and television have general as-
signments and do not seem to be
aware of the sensitivity of the fair
trial problems. "
"The problem is as serious as judges,
lawyers and the press choose to make
it. Reasonableness seems to prevail in
Massachusetts and most of New Eng-
land, with some isolated exceptions."
"Not in our Amherst community.
Such conflicts are worth worrying
about but I suggest the press or media
coverage of justice and the crucial
failures of the judicial and penal sys-
tems have much higher priority. "
"They are seldom a problem in Rhode
Island. Such conflicts as have arisen
have been resolved without a show-
down. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
23
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Failure of each side to understand or
trust the other and to recognize the
existence of legitimate competing
rights was generally believed to be
the most fundamental aspect of
media-law conflicts. Free press-fair
trial issues were cited slightly more
frequently than privacy issues. Also:
"The minority of clowns who screw
it up for everybody else."
What do you think are the most fundamental, or the most intractable,
aspects of the overall issue?
"The media, unfortunately, is just as in-
tractable as the courts. Many in the
media would ascribe to themselves the
function of judge and jury, legislative
and executive. Personally, l was utterly
shocked at the Manchester seminar by
some of the attitudes I heard colleagues
junior to me express in the matter of co-
operation with the law. More and more
the courts are employing gag rules, and
the media is less and less responsible in
safeguarding the rights of the individuals
concerned. "
"The efforts of certain judges to assert
direct control over what the media
may report or the public may say. The
second greatest problem is the blind
push from purported defenders of
civil liberties for excessive privacy. A t
bottom, this protects criminals and
weakens the prospects for fairness and
integrity in government."
"Usually an intractable judge, or an in-
tractable editor, or a stupid lawyer or a
brainless reporter. Sometimes a combina-
tion of the above. Most people in media
and law are pretty reasonable and will
behave themselves if they understand
the facts. But there's a minority of
clowns in both lines of work and they
screw it up for everybody else. "
"The most fundamental clash between
the media and the law is the belief of
the press that the First Amendment
takes precedent over the Fifth, Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments when
individual liberty is at stake. The media
today is big business by analogy. The
First Amendment has become an insti-
tutional shield rather than an individual
one. The days of Tom Paine and his ilk
are gone. On a given case where two or
more equal constitutional rights are in
conflict, I believe that which protects
the individual should be paramount
over that right which protects the
institution. "
"l worry about some judge I've of-
fended in print getting back at me by
demanding disclosure of my confiden-
tial sources, either as a part of a case
about which I have information, or as
part of a discovery in a libel suit. / also
worry about gag orders and the con-
tempt citations that might come-on
either a personal or principled basis-
from violating one. To carry this just a
bit further, I don't worry much about
actually going to jail. This is probably
foolishness on my part, but I envision
a short-term martyrdom with many of
the benefits and few of the usual costs
(such as death or long-term incarcera-
tion). I even figure I'd make some
pretty good contacts behind bars. But
even considering this fanciful expec-
tation, I worry a lot about the expense
to which the paper or magazine for
which I work can be put. I worry that
my type of work will simply become
too expensive for anyone to pursue."
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
24
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Respondents perceived greater
rigidity or deterioration over improv-
ing media-law relationships by a pro-
portion of 7-4. Some felt there was
greater understanding, but no solu-
tion and little cooperation, and that
the adversary relationship should re-
main. Again, several participants said
the problem existed principally at the
national level.
"I return to communication and under-
standing of one side for the other. News-
papers, for instance, lack the knowledge
and resolve for the adequate training of
young reporters in coverage of courts
and various legal agencies. On the other
hand, the legal profession does not
have an understanding of newspaper
responsibility. Some misunderstanding
arises from media outlets who act
irresponsibly. Unless there are better
and more frequent efforts to bring
media and law persons together, the
collision or conflict will get more
serious. "
"Fundamental and intractable is the
concept that prospective jurors are irre-
trievably prejudiced by what they read,
hear or see in the media. I believe this
mistaken assumption is based on the
premise that all prospective jurors are
idiots and cannot possibly judge im-
partially either the news in the media
or the facts in the courtroom."
"Reliance on press leaks and confiden-
tial sources tends to raise some ethical
questions, too. The source of potenti-
ally damaging information, while en-
suring the public right to know, is
concealed. All of a sudden, newspapers
are doing the work of police and law
enforcement bodies."
In your view, what is the trend in this area-that is, are relationships
deteriorating or are they improving? Is more understanding and coopera-
tion between the bench, bar and media developing, or do you believe
rigidity and confrontation are increasing?
"The situation remains stable in my
view if one realizes that there will al-
ways be conflict but it need not be
destructive. "
"Relationships are reasonably good, but
the poison that is infecting other parts
of the country could spread here. Here,
as elsewhere, judges typically rise to
'power' through the political process.
Watergate has shown us what can hap-
pen in the executive branch, when
power is asserted and exercised un-
checked and unobserved. That could
happen in New England in the judicial
process over the years. We do, however,
still have some tradition of judges
with a commitment to freedom and
civil liberties. We have a couple of the
great law schools of the country, and
that is, on balance, a distinct plus.'
"There is a cosy, chummy relationship.
This is the problem, more common, I
suspect than problems dealt with in the
conference. "
Approved For Release 225004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
"I see no strong trends at the moment
except, perhaps, a tendency in the di-
rection of improper use of gag orders.
As far as the reporter's privilege is con-
cerned, the situation cannot get worse
in Massachusetts since the Supreme
Judicial Court has held that no such
privilege exists. In Massachusetts, on
the other hand, I believe that more co-
operation is developing in the free
press-fair trial area. I believe that this
results from a more responsible view
towards the problem on the part of
the press plus increased appreciation
by the courts on First Amendment
values. "
"It depends upon what level you are
dealing with. I do think that efforts are
being made on the national level. The
problem is discussed in general terms.
But based upon my own research, I
doubt very much whether state and
local authorities are giving the matter
the proper attention. Advertising and
community pressures more often tend
to establish the boundaries of report-
ing, rather than an understanding be-
tween the local authorities and the
home-town newspaper."
"I do think that it is basically the
extremists on both sides that cause
the trouble, and that discourse is bene-
ficial. Some judges are accustomed to
being a law unto themselves. Con-
versely, the media is the only profes-
sion or occupation l can think of that
claims absolute rights, and, some may
forget that the Constitution is directed
to the public good, which is not neces-
sarily that of the individual actor. I
suspect the best discourse is that which
includes peer pressure, although there
are some on both sides who, as we have
observed, may resist that, too. "
"I detect that on the national front the
confrontations are increasing. In Ver-
mont, the situation is not one of rigidity,
at least at the present time. There are
some local problems, but they exist
because of situations (i.e., a news-
paper's coverage of a story, a dis-
gruntled lawyer or judge) which ap-
pear from time to time. We find in our
area there is general cooperation with
the bench and individual members of
the bar. "
"There are no major conflicts in the
courts of Fairfield County, or for that
matter, most of Connecticut. Bench-
bar-media relations have improved in
the post-Watergate era. Also, passage
last year of a Sunshine Law by the
General Assembly has contributed
favorably to the general atmosphere,
though this law was not aimed at the
courts. There have been some con-
flicts between defense attorneys and
newspapers, mainly on civil rights
cases. Again, these have not been
particularly serious."
Approved For Rlease 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Thirty-six answered "yes" and 22
answered "no" to the question
whether the media faces government
encroachment on First Amendment
rights. Several claimed the Federal
level represents the greatest danger.
There was considerable feeling that the
danger is not critical, but will continue,
perhaps fluctuating, and that the con-
frontation is part of an on-going rela-
tionship involving constant pressure
on First Amendment rights.
Do you believe that encroachment by the government on traditional
First Amendment rights is a real possibility we face?
"Local-no;
state-no;
federal-yes. "
"Manifestly. Except that / would say
the First Amendment rights are not
'theirs' but the citizen's. There are
numerous examples of attempts to
suppress information. Prior restraint
was imposed for 15 days in the Penta-
gon Papers case and for longer than
that in the Nebraska case ... The
trends are ominous, not for the media
particularly, but for the freedom of
the people. "
"Yes, the encroachment appears to be
increasing on par with the media's abil-
ity to reach people. As communications
become more sophisticated, courts try
harder to protect the rights of innocent
persons. On the local level, we've had
tremendous problems with police and
government. Local politicians often use
holes in right-to-know laws to deny in-
formation. Police, burned by premature
disclosures, say someone else has to
give information, and reporters are
passed along for hours-sometimes days. "
"My inclination is to feel that the press
is more militant in its interpretation of
open records and meetings, and as a re-
sult, government appears to conflict
with the press more often and more
openly. But I think government is being
no more secretive, the press is just in-
sisting on higher standards of openness-
and rightfully so. The critical problems
area t the national level, where govern-
ment has a more centralized view of the
public interest."
"On the state and federal level particu-
larly, there is a sort of sliding scale of
importance, power and encroachment.
A local district court judge, for exam-
ple, is unlikely to enjoin a local news-
paper as readily as a U.S. District
Court judge might be tempted to. "
"Yes on the federal level, and yes, too
in New Hampshire ... No in Vermont,
and no on our local level."
"Clearly, at least on the federal and
state level. To some extent, the
'local' levels seem less concerned. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
27
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
There was a consensus among the par-
ticipants that the sub-regional confer-
ences were beneficial: "There is hope
as long as both sides talk and under-
stand other viewpoints." Several com-
ments pointed out the inadequacy
and parochialism of the approach of
professional associations. Three addi-
tional comments were that the So-
cratic method produces guilt and
shame but no solutions, that perhaps
"creating 'conflicts' leads to aliena-
tion," and that there was "an excess of
righteousness on both sides."
What have we learned from the sub-regional conferences, engaging local
representatives of the bench, bar and media in Socratically-conducted
"conflict" cases? Anything valuable?
"We have learned (1) there is a conflict,
(2) it is inevitable, (3) neither one of us
can successfully dominate or dictate to
the other, and (4) the exercise allows
for the therapy of exploration and mus-
cle flexing!"
"I think the Airwick aspect of the con-
ference was useful. It's easy to gripe in
chambers, or stomp around the city
room, but when your views are chal-
lenged, it leads to a bit more patience
in their formulation. The bitching and
moaning at bar associations about the
goddamned press, and the wailing and
gnashing of teeth at editorial confer-
ences, are not colloquial, and the con-
frontation of the two groups is useful
in the extreme."
on these questions: To what extent
should a journalist go to obtain a
story? And when to publish and when
not to publish?"
"The conferences are particularly help-
ful in making editors and reporters
deal with ethics. We don't always de-
mand the same stringent code for our-
selves as we set for others. For example,
we'd be furious if a politician withheld
information the public needed to make
an intelligent decision, but we with-
hold sources and sometimes plan cov-
erage to our benefit. Editors don't
challenge their friends as sharply as
good lawyers. The Socratic method
generates dialogue and leaves a lasting
impression. "
"'What would you do?' questions put
to participants seemed to me extraordi-
narily illuminating and helpful, It, in
effect, confronted participants with real
rather than theoretical decisions, and it
helped create understanding of the
other fellow's problems and responsi-
bilities. "
"The Media-Law Conflict Conferences
have provided me with a clearer insight
into the problems of the judges, prose-
cutors and defense attorneys. At the
same time, though l embrace the First
Amendment, I have become more con-
vinced that journalists must develop
professional codes. At Chatham and
again at Lakeville, there was a wide
difference of opinion among journalists
"I learned from Newport just how thor-
oughly the bench and the press have
worked out a conflict-free relationship-
quite surprising. "
"At other professional meetings only
one side to an argument is heard, rein-
forcing rigidity. The Socratic method
explodes the rigidity and exposes in-
herent doctrine fluff. This makes the
Harvard Conferences more enlighten-
ing. "
"The Socratic method puts the individ-
ual participant on the spot-in a 'real'
case, and calls for a decision. By explor-
ing the conflicts through this method,
the immediacy of the situation is much
more apparent than through the lecture
method. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Thirty-six participants felt that "con-
sciousness-raising" sessions tend to pro-
vide a better basis for dealing with the
difficulties involved: "They are help-
ful in increasing a mutual sense of falli-
bility." Most felt that broader sensi-
tivity was achieved and stereotypes
were not reinforced. But some respond-
ents demurred: doesn't raise conscious-
ness for long; consciousness-raising has
nothing to do with basic conflicts; divi-
sion and resistance are reinforced; no
sense of conciliation results; ideas are
exchanged but no substantive changes
occur.
Do such consciousness-raising sessions actually tend to produce a better
basis for dealing with the difficulties involved; do they help bring about
broader sensitivity to the various rights and interests, or greater resistance
and parochialism?
"I believe more the latter. I grow weary
of lawyers prating of ethics when ethi-
cal misbehavior abounds within a pro-
fession bound by canons-and revised
canons at that. "
"My fear is that both sides are proving
intransigent. Judges become obsessed
with the idea that they've been ordained,
not by man, but by God, to play
around with the lives of people. They
are allowed to rule their courts, and
probably necessarily so, with a certain
amount of despotism. How you re-
solve it is beyond my ken. "
"Based on my experience at one confer-
ence (Newport), I didn't sense any gen-
eral feeling of conciliation although
some of the news people there gave me
the impression that they'd just as soon
not go out of their way to antagonize
judges and prosecutors they had to deal
with every day. "
"Yes to the first two questions, for my
part. At the same time, it did seem to
me that in some instances simplistic
positions were reinforced. It's particu-
larly easy for some press people to lock
the door of their 'right to publish'
bunker. "
"Something of each. The method often
does not permit in-depth positions of
the reasons for positions and attitudes.
Also, some participants can convey a
doctrinaire attitude. The press or media
people often don't perceive the nature
of the real world-they seem to believe
in the immutability and self-explicating
character of the First Amendment. "
"Yes to all three questions, depending
on the personalities involved. I'd suggest
that whatever inadvertent gains might
be made in the area of question two-
developing or reinforcing broader sensi-
tivity to various rights and interests-
more than make up for anybody suffer-
ing (this word is purposely chosen to
show my bias toward close-minded peo-
ple) from reinforced stereotypic vision. "
"One must ask the question if everyone
has a conscience and what are their
personal beliefs which must effect their
professional beliefs. We, who are en-
gaged in the various professions that
are constantly under the scrutiny of
the public, tend to indulge ourselves
in the theory that whatever we do is
the right thing and is therefore good
for everyone else in society. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
29
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Not very much is happening locally to
address the problem of media-law con-
flicts, according to 31 of the participants.
Follow-up comments ranged widely:
lack of understanding persists; there is
some relaxation and lessening of ten-
sions and slightly increased dialogue;
conflicts really don't exist locally
anyway.
What is happening in your own area concerning efforts to deal with
media-law conflicts, either as a result of the sub-regional conferences, or
unrelated to them?
"Private discussions, mostly. I'm more
aware, certainly, talk more to lawyers
about what I'm doing, think more
about it. I've promulgated my own set
of guidelines, which are pretty much
formalized, although applied only by
myself to myself. They came directly
out of discussions with several judges
at Chatham I."
"So far lawyers and judges are talking
among themselves,- they're convinced
they're the only ones who perceive the
problem and can achieve solutions. "
"The Massachusetts Bar-Press Commit-
tee continues to function, as it has for
nearly 20 years. It sponsors an annual
seminar in this matter. Journalism
groups conduct discussions and meet-
ings on the subject topic. "
"Not much locally, but on the State
level, a continuous effort is being made
to evolve a more satisfactory procedure
for appealing gag orders and obtaining
a decision before the issue becomes
moot. This is being done with the co-
operation of the Chief Court Adminis-
tra tor. "
"Sadly, nothing. There has been some
talk of conducting a conference on con-
flicts, but so far nothing has come of it.
Locally, I try to keep up a constant dia-
logue with judges and members of law
firms. "
"A combination of nothing and not
enough in New Hampshire. Without
area conferences, the arena becomes
national, which means input and out-
put by national groups on certain cases.
The problem gets quantified. "
"Locally the media-law relationship re-
mains much the way it has always been-
poor. The judiciary and law-enforcement
apparatus in Springfield, largely political
institutions, continue to play favorites
when it comes to dealing with the press,
and appear to be concerned not so much
with protecting the rights of individuals
as with rewarding cooperative reporters. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
30
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Thirty-eight participants felt there
should be continuing efforts in New
England along the lines of the type al-
ready undertaken (conferences, meet-
ings, panels) toward diminution of con-
flicts, especially those jointly arranged
or sponsored by the media and the
bench/bar. The following suggestions
were among those added: familiarizing
personnel of media outlets with both
sides of the story; issues brought to the
attention of the public more by better
media publicity concerning the prob-
lem; more research about juries; a
Channel 2 "Advocates" type program.
What do you think should be done within New England to follow-up the
efforts already started to get the various parties at interest working to
resolve rather than aggravate conflicts?
"You've done it. Do it some more, to
more people. The same way: no
speeches, let 'em fight. It's good for
them. In addition to which, the food's
good and there's adequate refreshment,
and that kind of company is pretty
uniformly intelligent and outspoken,
which makes the sessions stimulating.
But for the luvva Mike, don't call it
consciousness-raising.' "
"The appointment of a Public Informa-
tion Officer for Massachusetts courts is
a start. The press, like any other lay-
man, generally does not have much un-
derstanding of the law (lawyers, not
that their understanding is always
superior, are at least accustomed to
both sides of the various arguments).
The conflict can't and probably
shouldn't end. But communication
which yields understanding benefits
the public. "
"l think the New England Press and the
New England Bar Association should
sponsor a joint conference or series of
workshops, pondering local cases that
have emerged within recent years. The
respective editors should then initiate
consciousness-raising sessions between
local authorities and the members of
their editorial staffs. "
"Conferences should be continued
to keep up the communication among
these conflicting interests. I t is particu-
larly important that representatives of
the media learn the reasons why cer-
tain information given to the general
public at the wrong time will create a
mistrial. "
"L Joint efforts by professional associ-
ations; 2. Special seminars sponsored
by third parties; 3. Educational efforts,
starting at the high school level. "
-1. Regularly scheduled conferences;
2. Assistance for media outlets who
wish to familiarize their personnel with
both sides of this story; 3. Creation of a
standard of conduct to aid ethically-
minded decision makers. "
"I would like to see another sub-regional
conference where the bench-bar-media
would present written proposed guide-
lines so that a proper process would be
developed to protect the defendant,
the defense and the victim against any
type of yellow journalism and en-
hance the criminal justice system. "
"Maybe set up a joint bench/bar com-
mittee to formulate resolutions for any
actual conflict-and present its testi-
mony in the case as an expert witness. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
31
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Future approaches to the problem listed
on the questionnaire were checked by
the participants as follows:
5 Nothing, conflict unresolvable.
2 Nothing, situation will sort itself
out.
69 Consciousness-raising efforts.
35 Creation of professional codes or
standards for media.
24 Self-restraint by media outlets.
3 Statutes or judicial orders laying
down procedures for media.
54 Training programs for bench, bar
and media.
19 Guidelines in various areas such as
free press-fair trial.
19 State, regional or national press
councils with monitoring roles
(favoring no sanctions).
8 Other: see quotes.
What kind of approach to the problem generally do you think holds the
greatest promise?
-Nothing, not much is effective; and the situation is more liable to sort
itself out in time.
-Pursue consciousness-raising efforts, keep the debate going.
-Professional codes or standards for the media.
-Encourage individual media outlets to develop and apply their own
practices of self-restraint.
-Statutes or judicial orders laying down procedures.
-Cross-disciplinary educational or training programs for bench, bar and
media personnel.
-Promulgation of guidelines for the various parties in specific areas such
as free press-fair trial, privacy, national security, etc.
-Press councils to play a monitoring role, using official or unofficial
sanctions.
--Other.
"Shouldn't we be emphasizing that the
problem is an essential and desirable
dynamic element of the multiple safe-
guards our form of government pro-
vides; that without some such con-
flicts we don't have a dynamic pro-
cess where various rights (including
the continuation and survival of a par-
ticipating democracy) constantly and
eternally confront each other."
"Court restrictions on the press
should be imposed only as a last re-
sort, and only after full hearings on
them are held and appealed; the bar
must discipline itself first. "
"Speedup the court process so that
news follows instead of leads the type
of information emanating from the
courts. "
"Do these sessions before law school
and journalism classes."
"Scrutinize the logical assumptions of
prejudicial pre-trial publicity. Deter-
mine whether a man/some men/all
men will resist facts, especially exculpa-
tory facts, if he/they have previously
absorbed data to the contrary."
Approved For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Further comments offered by individual
participants included: involve more pub-
lishers; opposition to media guidelines;
statutory regulation and "rule-making";
support for professional standards for
bench and bar as well as the press; rec-
ognize the intimidation of small-town
press by the courts and the bar; since
it's a national problem, New England
should work with other regions; inde-
pendent publications should monitor
media behavior.
Do you have any further comment on the subject of media-law conflicts?
"I'm a big believer in an independent
publication monitoring media behavior-
MORE, Columbia Journalism in Review,
etc. I'd rather have the self-interest and
skepticism of journalists and critics
represented in these publications keep-
ing watch of our shortcomings."
"The media and conferences neglected
the role of the media in keeping the
courts 'honest.' The courts are a branch
of government; they exercise power;
this power can be and is abused. Also,
the purpose of an open trial is to en-
sure a fair trial-no star chamber. "
"The law must protect individual rights;
the press must go after stories; no resolv-
ing occasional conflicts. But it makes
sense that the press, like other profes-
sions, should develop an ethical code on
methods of getting stories, limits, etc.
I'm amazed that there is no consistent
position on 'secret' recordings of inter-
views, for example. But, on the other
hand, the legal profession is at times so
rarified that it seems to have no under-
standing of who and how the news is
gotten. "
"Criticism may be helpful in addition to
consciousness-raising seminars. The airing
of such criticism should be in the news,
no matter which side receives the criti-
cism. This may raise consciousness even
more so. "
"I not only abhor notions of 'rule mak-
ing'as to these questions, but I think
that they are inherently unworkable.
Therefore, I support the idea that as we
must live with these media-law ten-
sions, conferences, such as the ones
you have conducted, are the best way
to deal with a problem I hope we shall
always have. "
"Too little emphasis was placed on in-
timidation of small-town press by
courts and bar. Often, the smaller
papers and radio stations are totally
controlled in their relationship with
the courts or the bar. "
"A conflict which might be considered
worthy of discussion ... is the secret
reviews by the Connecticut Bar Associa-
tion (and I presume bar groups in other
states) of candidates for the bench. In
Connecticut, the Governor has handed
the bar a VETO stamp, and will not ap-
point to the bench any man or woman
who does not receive a favorable rating
by the bar. The bar review meets pri-
vately at a private club. Until a contro-
versy developed last year, the bar would
not make public the names of members
of the committee. Some are politicians
and lobbyists and l doubt every member
can weigh impartially the merits of a
judicial candidate. Though we have a
Sunshine Law, secrecy prevails in this
instance. In a word, how can members
of the press condone secrecy in the
selection of judges?"
"The debate, rather than any adversary
or pseudo and binding set of guidelines,
is to be encouraged and is possibly the
only clearly useful goal to be pursued. I
fear the interests too often shared by
bench-bar-media to temper or ever tam-
per with the wide open and robust and
disturbing debate our society should
have, though the public may not care
for it or want its right to know shoved
down its throat. All around the three-
cornered conflict, it is a problem of
waiving rights which are, historically,
rather wavering anyway. "
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
33
 Approved ForReleaOaCKgrour~~8f11%/eRI 1 601 }% rldper
The following Background Inventory Paper was prepared by Michael Israels for gen-
eral use by the sponsors and the Steering Committee. The paper lists the principal
issues involved in media-law conflicts and outlines various activities undertaken to
deal with such conflicts.
This introductory section of the Background Inventory Paper attempts to
identify and briefly summarize the major problems of the media-law con-
flict which were discussed at conference sessions, as well as some issues
that received less attention but remain important concerns.
News-gathering methods
To what extent should journalists go in getting a story? What if a story
is obtained by unethical conduct, by conduct which violates established
professional standards (e.g., lawyer-client privilege), or by conduct which
is in fact illegal? How should an editor treat an offending reporter?
Should the story be used, and in what form? What are the legal responsi-
bilities of journalists? The issue of organizational responsibility and the
responsibility of editors for the acts of reporters which they do not know
about (or perhaps do not wish to know about), has uncomfortable paral-
lels to Watergate. The problem for journalists is certainly complicated by
the position of law enforcement officials who at present are barred from
using certain illegally-obtained evidence at a trial. Many who favor such a
bar against law enforcement officials would not want to apply the same
rule to journalists. And many who propose civil and criminal penalties
for law enforcement officials are reluctant to apply the same penalties
to journalists who commit a crime in the course of pursuing a story.
Conflicts of interest
Should journalists disclose conflicts of interest when they have a finan-
cial interest in subjects they write about? For example, should a colum-
nist who accepts a fee as a consultant to a political candidate disclose
that fact, or even refrain from writing about the candidate and his oppo-
nents? What about a journalist with a part-ownership in a business or
real estate, who writes about related topics?
The impact of competition
What are the effects on journalism of the increasing concentration of
ownership of media outlets? Is present governmental regulation to pre-
vent such concentration adequate? Should government intervene at all?
Conversely, what are the effects-good and bad-of competition on edi-
torial decisions?
Paying for news
When a newspaper or station pays for a story or an interview, should that
fact be disclosed? "Checkbook journalism" may be neither a boon nor a
great evil, but the identification of a story for which a fee has been paid
may assist the public in weighing its value.
Approved For Relealg 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Individual Rights and the Media
Privacy
Should there be some protection accorded to the private individual, and
the private life of the public individual? Should there be a definition of
what constitutes "private" information? Does the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act raise new problems in this area as it makes more information
available?
Health and safety
How should journalists conduct themselves in situations where how and
whether the news is reported affects the health or the physical safety of
individuals? Those affected might include parties, victims and witnesses,
in legal proceedings. Further, does media coverage of certain crimes or
criminals encourage others to imitate them? Such effects are not always
predictable, and any approach to this problem must take this fact into
account.
Publicity and the right to a fair trial
A criminal defendant's right to an impartial jury trial traditionally has
been interpreted as a right to a jury which has not been subjected to
excessive publicity about his case. While legal authorities have not con-
sidered pre-trial publicity a problem in civil cases, it may be prejudicial
there as well. Certainly, there is conflict between the freedom (and the
obligation) of the media to report the news, and the right of the defend-
ant to an impartial jury. The problems are more severe when the defend-
ant is a "newsmaker," and when media scrutiny may be important to
insure that the legal system works properly. Numerous press and bar
groups have considered this issue, and it was a major topic at our con-
ference sessions.
Protection of the law enforcement process
What are the dangers to effective law enforcement from the reporting of
some of its activities? Certain law enforcement interests-such as the pro-
tection of key witnesses and informants, and of innocent persons coop-
erating with authorities-are threatened when overexposed by media cov-
erage. Yet these interests must be balanced against a public interest in
learning more about law enforcement and the operation of the court sys-
tem, and against the public's need for media scrutiny of the conduct of
law enforcement officials.
Protection of journalists and sources
Further, while the public's right to know may be advanced by the abso-
lute confidentiality of a journalist's sources, and by the provision to him
of certain information on an off-the-record basis, this interest may con-
Approved ForAelease 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
flict at times with the interest of law enforcement authorities in securing
information about crime. This conflict has in the past led to the imposi-
tion of contempt penalties against journalists for refusal to reveal confi-
dential sources and information. What should the standards be? Should
there be legislation? Should the standard be different when the informa-
tion could possibly be used to prevent a future crime?
Exploitation of journalists
Other problems between the law enforcement process and the media in-
volve the exploitation of the media by some law enforcement officials
and by defendants and their lawyers. The defendant who provides infor-
mation to the media on a "no-attribution" basis and then complains that
the resulting publicity denies him a fair trial, is just one example of this
problem.
The argument that disclosure of certain information would adversely af-
fect the national interest has been a frequent approach used by govern-
ment to restrain or discourage the media from obtaining and publishing
such information. Attempts to restrain the media judicially are dealt
with separately below. Whether voluntary restraint on the part of the
media is ever feasible or desirable is an important issue. Certainly, the
"national security" concept has been abused as a vehicle for concealing
governmental misconduct, and for news manipulation by government
officials. Yet is media self-restraint in sensitive areas of national security
ever justified, despite the exploitation?
Legal Attempts to Restrain the Media
Court orders
In addition to attempts to obtain voluntary media restraint in matters
affecting the right to a fair trial, and in national security areas, govern-
ment sometimes applies pressure to the media through judicial action.
Few attempts to restrain publication through judicial orders have been
successful. An outstanding unsuccessful attempt is the Pentagon Papers
case. However, there are successes; for example, the court-upheld dele-
tion of portions of a recently published book on the Central Intelligence
Agency.
In the fair trial area, recent months have seen a number of well-publicized
attempts to impose court-ordered restraints on the media. The recent
Nebraska gag order decision by the U.S. Supreme Court strictly limits
the circumstances in which a restraint order may be imposed on the press.
This decision, however, stops short of ruling that a court can never restrain
the press.
Approved For Release 209/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Yet even when the attempt to restrain the press is unsuccessful, there are
problems. A contempt-of-court penalty will frequently be imposed for
disobedience of a lower court order, despite the ultimate appellate court
finding that the order was unconstitutional. The delay in publication may
sometimes do irreparable harm to the public's right to be well-informed.
In addition, some would argue that a long and expensive legal proceeding
is, in itself, an abridgement of freedom of the press.
Right of reply
Whether an individual who is the subject of a news report or an editorial
comment should be able to reply is a sensitive issue. A statutory require-
ment has been declared an unconstitutional restraint on the media, but
the issue persists. Members of the legal community, and, indeed, members
of the public, may be inclined to take the position that fairness on the
part of the media may require a retraction or the opportunity to reply,
at least in some cases. Many in the media contend that their discretion
is not to be limited, and a few argue that it is not even to be questioned.
Accuracy and Fairness
Should anyone monitor the performance of the media? Certainly, the
public views the media as often less than wholly accurate and fair.
What should be the legal responsibilities of the press for accuracy and
fairness? And beyond legal responsibility, what are the ethical and
public-spirited responsibilities of the press? Should the press monitor
itself through criticism and comment? Should each news outlet have
one or more internal critics (ombudsmen) who monitor and criticize its
own performance? What about watching and criticizing the performance
of competitors? Another possibility is a more formal association of
journalists who would monitor and criticize journalistic conduct. Finally,
there is the option of public monitoring of the press-the so-called "press
council" approach where a body, which includes journalists and laymen,
observes and comments on press performance.
Summary
The news media enjoy a special and unique privilege in our society. Freed
by the constitution, the legislatures and the courts from virtually all gov-
ernment coercion, and from much of the economic restraint which gov-
ernment imposes on other industries, the media industry has been de-
scribed as the only truly free enterprise in America. The media have been
a powerful force for all of our nation's history, with a major impact upon
wars, elections, legislation, and law enforcement. A free press has been,
and will continue to be, important both to protect our liberties, and to
provide us with a good look at the way our institutions function. Yet the
freedom of the press may, at times, come into real or apparent conflict
Approved For W ease 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
with the ethical or legal responsibilities of journalists as citizens, and with
important individual rights such as privacy, a fair trial, and health and
safety. Further, press activity may impair the effective functioning of the
law enforcement system or even the nation's security.
What responsibilities does the press have for these other interests? Should
government seek to impose legal restraints on the press? Should the press
seek to restrain itself, individually, collectively or both? How to balance
these conflicting interests, how to have a press that is free but is also fair
to the individual, that is an unrestrained observer and critic of any and
all institutions, but not a destroyer of institutions that ought not to be
destroyed-these are matters of continuing concern to journalists, the
legal community and the public.
The problems we have delineated have been the subject of a great deal
more talk than action. The incomplete list which follows attempts to
indicate something about the nature of proposed and attempted pro-
grams in this area.
Guidelines on Free Press-Fair Trial (Prior Restraint)
Various bar groups, and joint bar/press committees have attempted to
formulate general guidelines to aid judges, lawyers and the media in trial
situations where voluntary or court-imposed restraints may be appropri-
ate. The American Bar Association's most recent proposal is "Proposed
Court Procedure for Fair Trial-Free Press Judicial Restrictive Orders."
These guidelines are the outgrowth of the report of a committee chaired
by Justice Paul Reardon of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
who was a participant at one of our conference sessions.
Other guidelines have been proposed by bench/bar media groups in the
states of New York, Rhode Island and Washington. These guidelines
attempt to indicate the kinds of publicity that may cause a mistrial, to
recommend specific efforts at voluntary restraint in publication, and to
indicate ways in which a restraint order-should one seem unavoidable-
may be made as limited as possible.
The Twentieth Century Fund sponsored an independent Task Force on
Justice, Publicity and the First Amendment. The group included lawyers,
judges, law professors, and both reporters and editors. The Task Force re-
port, which has been published (Rights in Conflict, McGraw Hill, 1976),
is generally critical of restraint orders, and favors guidelines so long as
they remain voluntary. Particularly interesting is its query whether re-
straints on comment by lawyers and litigants during the pendency of a
court case violate their First Amendment rights.
Approved For Release
'33004/11/01 :CIA-RDP88-013158000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Proposed "Shield" Legislation
Legislation defining the nature and extent of a journalist's privilege not to
reveal the identity of sources and information given to him in confidence
has been proposed in Congress and several states. Rhode Island is among
the states which have enacted such legislation.
Reviewing the Media
A number of newspapers have formed Citizen's Advisory Councils in the
past, and some of these are still in existence. As early as 1950, the Santa
Rosa (California) Press Democrat had such a group, which reviewed its
performance and communicated its views to the publisher. Other advis-
ory groups are documented in Backtalk: Press Councils in America, by
B. Blankenburg and W. Rivers.
Several newspapers have designated members of their staff to play the
role of internal critic or ombudsman. Ombudsmen not only have an im-
pact on their own newspaper, but often, as was the case with former
Washington Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian, their views can influence
the media at large.
In general
A press council is an independent body, usually made up of journalists
and members of the public, which reviews media performance and some-
times hears disputes between members of the media and members of the
public. The concept is not a new one. According to a recent article in
the Duke Law Journal (vol. 1974, p. 845) :
Numerous groups have proposed press councils in the United States. The
first formal recommendation came in 1947 from the Commission on
Freedom of the Press, chaired by Robert Hutchins, chancellor of the
University of Chicago and former dean of Yale Law School. Stressing
that the only way for the press to remain free was to be responsible,
the Commission called for creation of an independent agency to ap-
praise and report annually on press performance. In 1951, Senator Wil-
liam Benton of Connecticut proposed that a similar body for the elec-
tronic media be established by Congress with its members appointed by
the President. John Lofton of Stanford's Institute for Communication
Research in 1961 called for the development of a body "to monitor and
report on press performance. " In 1973, University of Minnesota Jour-
nalism Professor J. Edward Gerald asked that a national press council
be formed and supported by the established professional and educa-
tional associations. In 1967, it was suggested by journalist and media
Approved For ReleaqV 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
critic Ben H. Bagdikian that universities serve as centers in creating press
councils for their respective areas. The National Institute of Public Af-
fairs in Washington in its 1968 meeting outlined a proposal for a na-
tional press council made up of distinguished laymen. In 1970, a Task
Force of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Vio-
lence called for a "national media center with ...,clearly delineated
powers of monitorship, evaluation, and publication, but without sanc-
tion.' "
[footnotes omitted]
The British Press Council
The British Press Council has been in existence since 1953, and it re-
views some 400 matters each year. Its objectives are, paraphrasing its
Constitution, to preserve freedom of the press, to maintain high profes-
sional standards of journalism, to deal with complaints about the con-
duct of the press, and to review developments which might tend to re-
strict the supply of information. The only force given its decisions is
that they are generally well publicized. According to legal commen-
tators, its decisions have established a useful body of commentary on
appropriate professional standards for journalists, which has been re-
ferred to as a "common law" of journalism.
The Minnesota Press Council
The Minnesota Press Council was established in 1971, by the Minnesota
Newspaper Association. It has 18 members, half journalists and half lay-
men. Its first action upon creation was to declare its independence from
the Minnesota Newspaper Association. From 1971 to 1974, it had de-
cided 11 cases, resolving a number of others by encouraging the parties
to attempt a conciliatory meeting, and dismissing other complaints as
insignificant. Its decisions have been in such areas as libel, access to the
press, newsmen's privilege not to disclose sources, media and the law en-
forcement process, individual safety, and biased news reporting. While
not all Minnesota newspapers have fully supported the Council, its de-
cisions have received wide publicity, even in newspapers against whom
decisions were rendered.
The National News Council
The National News Council was formally established in August 1973,
upon recommendations of a Task Force of nine journalists and five
members of the public whose work was sponsored by the Twentieth
Century Fund. The two-year report of the National News Council
(In the Public Interest: A Report by the National News Council, 1973-
1975, released October 27, 1975) indicates that the Council has con-
sidered 61 complaints. Of these, as of July 31, 1975, five had been up-
held, 33 found unwarranted, 21 dismissed and two were pending. Over
300 complaints were received during this period, but many were local
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
41
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
in nature (thus outside the Council's jurisdiction), lacked specifics, or
were not followed up by the complaining party. Others were disposed
of through settlement or staff action.
Not all newspapers have supported the Council (nor have all broadcasters),
although most of those involved in complaint proceedings have cooper-
ated in them. A notable exception is The New York Times, which has
opposed the Council and refused to provide it information in investigat-
ing complaints against the Times. Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger
has stated that Council procedures "lack due process." In its first two
years, the Council received eight complaints against the Times (more than
against any other newspaper, but not surprising in light of the Times' size
and visibility). One complaint was upheld.
Media in general, including the Times, have publicized Council decisions,
which is the only sanction within the Council's power. Other members of
the media have expressed sharply divergent opinions on the Council and
on its decisions, but one noteworthy judgment is that of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors, which in its 1975 Report on Ethics stated:
The National News Council's integrity to date is without question. Al-
though the Council after 18 months has not finally established a record
on which it can stand or fall, it has nevertheless established a record that
deserves much more attention than either editors or the public have so
far given it.
The Twentieth Century Fund, whose report initially proposed creation of
the Council, commissioned an independent study of the Council by a
committee chaired by Judge George Edwards of the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit. The evaluating committee report was gener-
ally favorable, and recommended expansion of the Council's jurisdiction
and increased efforts to publicize its work. The future of the National
News Council will depend on securing adequate funding.
A conference of lawyers, law school professors, judges and journalists
met under the sponsorship of the Roscoe Pound American Trial Law-
yers Foundation in June 1973. Commissioned background papers were
discussed, and the conference made specific recommendations in the
areas of journalists' privilege, governmental regulation of broadcast
journalism, and access to governmental information. A published report
contains the background papers, recommendations, and highlights of
the discussion.
Approved For Re4gase 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
This section will attempt to set forth a list of possible future activities
in the area of the media and the law. Rather than presenting an evaluated
list of proposals, we have attempted to suggest as many possibilities as
we could. Some of these possibilities may arouse little interest. Others
may arouse considerable opposition. We hope at least a few will prove
useful and provocative.
The proposals are divided into a number of categories: (1) Voluntary ac-
tions by the media; (2) Providing consultation to the media; (3) Educa-
tional programs; (4) Legal protections for the media; (5) Guidance to
lawyers and judges; (6) Prior guidance for the media (codes of conduct
for journalists); and (7) Post-hoc guidance-monitoring the media.
1
Voluntary Actions by the Media
The media, acting voluntarily and individually, might at times reduce cov-
erage when, in its judgment, coverage is harmful. The areas of free press-
fair trial, of individual privacy, of stories which might encourage violent
disruption or endanger human health and safety are replete with exam-
ples of individual self-restraint by members of the media which have had
the effect of preserving important individual rights and interests.
The exercise of individual self-restraint by the media is often hampered
by competitive pressures. Such pressures exist within each publication or
broadcast news department, and also exist in rivalries among media out-
lets. Journalism is a competitive business, but there are times when the
interests of competition should not supersede the interests of individuals.
Nor should the existence of competitive pressures encourage the dissem-
ination of suspect or potentially harmful material simply on the fatalistic
theory that "someone else will do it if we don't." Consultation between
media outlets over possible areas where collective self-restraint might be
exercised to protect individual rights and individual health and safety, is
encouraged where feasible.
While individual interests may demand restraint in reporting some spe-
cific events involving the law and the courts (e.g., names of juvenile of-
fenders or victims), the public has a right to know, and the media have
a duty to describe, how the justice system functions, and whether it is
functioning effectively. To this end, more reporting, more depth, and
more accuracy in media coverage of the courts and their activities ought
to be encouraged.
Approved For Releas43 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
2
Providing Consultation to the Media
However, in conflict with the goal of more coverage of the law and the
courts is the fact that lawyers and judges are frequently inclined (and in
some cases are ethically bound) not to discuss the details of court cases,
even those in which they are not directly involved. Efforts ought to be
made to encourage voluntary discussions between members of the media
and lawyers and judges, on a "background" basis. Such discussions
should contribute to informing the media-and through them, the pub-
lic-of the meaning and significance of legal procedures and decisions as
they take place. The voluntary adherence of the media to the "back-
ground" rule in conducting such discussions might well encourage the
participation of the judges or lawyers who might otherwise feel ethical-
ly bound not to talk. Participation would still be up to the individual
lawyer or judge.
In addition, media and bar representatives are encouraged to set up in-
formal briefing sessions, still on a background basis, where current judi-
cial actions or issues involving the conduct of the court system may be
informatively presented and discussed.
Members of the media and law enforcement officials should also consult
from time to time to encourage voluntary actions which might avoid con-
flicts, when protection of secret aspects of an investigation seems essen-
tial to human health and safety.
Another area in which consultation might prove extremely helpful to
members of the media is when they face a particular editorial decision
about what to publish, when to publish, or even whether to publish a
story in one of the sensitive areas we have identified. The editor must,
and will, make the decision on his or her own. However, he might wel-
come the opportunity to consult with some lawyers, judges, or members
of the media not directly involved in the particular case, who have dealt
with some of the issues before, and who have practical as well as theo-
retical experience with the type of problem the editor faces.
3
Educational Programs
A frequent theme in discussions at conference meetings over the past
two years was that the professions involved collectively knew very little
of each other. This lack of familiarity extended not only to a lack of
understanding of how each profession does its work, but also to what
sometimes appeared to be a lack of perception of the issues which each
profession considers central to its work, and, indeed, sometimes a lack of
the personal contact and familiarity between the two professions
which makes conflict less likely.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Some of this lack of familiarity is beneficial. Too much familiarity be-
tween a journalist and his subject may discourage the objective and in-
formative reporting of a press which is free to take an adversary role. A
balance must be struck between lack of familiarity and over-familiarity.
Educational programs should be developed to expose journalists and
lawyers to the issues involved in the media-law conflict. Materials de-
signed to play a teaching role, both for formal undergraduate programs
for lawyers and journalists, and for continuing educational programs for
both professions, should be encouraged.
A number of educational programs are suggested:
-Curricular materials could be developed to acquaint lawyers and law
enforcement officials with the role, rights and responsibilities of the
press in this and other countries.
-Curricular materials could be developed to acquaint journalists with
important legal concepts which play a role in the law's view of the press.
-Law schools and lawyers might examine and discuss legal behavior to-
ward the press as it is preached in the codes of ethics, and practiced by
the bench and bar.
-Curricular materials for judges, lawyers and journalists could put to-
gether information on new developments in the law of communications
on areas of media-law conflicts, such as free press-fair trial.
-Curricular materials on such issues as evaluating evidence in investi-
gative reporting, use and evaluation of information from confidential
sources, should be provided to journalists and lawyers.
-Materials should be developed to explain to journalists the procedures
and functioning of the law enforcement and judicial systems.
-A guide should be written to the legal and practical definitions of spe-
cific criminal acts, written in laymen's language, aimed at preventing in-
advertent crime by a journalist in pursuit of a story.
-A list of resources-reading materials should be compiled on the various
issues involving the media and the law.
-A series of descriptions of actual cases could be compiled as they arise,
with commentaries on the decisions made by participants and others.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
45
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
4
Legal Protection for the Media
Recent court action in two areas has led some to propose specific legisla-
tion to protect journalists against contempt of court penalties for refusal
to reveal sources of information obtained in confidence, and for disobedi-
ence of court orders restraining publication (even where the restraint
orders were later found invalid).
A legislative definition of "newsman's privilege," analogous to doctor-
patient privilege, lawyer-client privilege, or to the privilege of clergymen,
could be proposed. Imposing such a legislative definition, sometimes re-
ferred to as a "shield law" for newsmen, would be a symbolic statement
of the importance attached to the communication of information to
newsmen, and thus to the public. Based on experience, such legislation
might be necessary to prevent newsmen from being jailed for contempt,
upon refusal to testify to the identity of sources or to confidential in-
formation they have obtained. Whether it served this function or not,
the legislative definition of a "newsman's privilege" would be a legisla-
tive endorsement of the public's right to know.
However, some who favor the confidentiality of sources nonetheless op-
pose specific shield laws for a number of reasons. They argue that defin-
ing privileged areas would leave little room for media discretion in mat-
ters not specifically covered which might be equally important to effec-
tive journalistic activity. Further, they argue that supporting shield legis-
lation would be an admission that the First Amendment does not ade-
quately protect journalists from contempt punishment, thus conceding
defeat in a legal battle which is still going on.
The imposition of contempt punishment for disobedience of a judicial
restraint order is a major issue in the media-law conflict. Some recent
cases have involved imposition of a restraint order, followed by a deci-
sion on the part of a publication or broadcaster to publish or broadcast
anyway. In due course, the original restraint order has been found in-
valid by an appellate court, but in many cases a contempt punishment
for disobedience of the restraint order has been imposed, despite the
appellate finding that the order was invalid. The legal theory is that
the journalist's proper approach is to appeal the order and to obey it
until the appellate court decides.
However, journalists argue that the appellate procedure is prolonged and
expensive, causing the value of almost any story which might be printed
to be lost and constituting an excessive burden, which amounts to an
abridgment of press freedom. The courts have not resolved the issue.
However a number of people, including Fred W. Friendly, Advisor on
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
46
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Communications to the Ford Foundation, have proposed that expedited
procedures should be instituted by court rules or by legislation, to pro-
vide a fast and simplified review of restraint orders against broadcast or
publication. This would allow a speedy determination of the case, and if
the court ruled in the media's favor, as is likely, would allow publication
while the story still has news value.
5
Guidance to Lawyers and Judges
Providing guidance to judges and lawyers might assist them in their deal-
ings with the media. Specifically, voluntary guidelines for when a re-
straint order might be appropriate and permissible, procedures for avoid-
ing such orders by voluntary action, for imposing them when unavoid-
able, and for limiting their effect to necessary periods, could be devel-
oped. Such guidelines should take into consideration the proposals of
the American Bar Association and various state groups, although the re-
sults of a new effort might well be different. For all the controversy
about publicity and the right to a fair trial, little is really known about
the effects of publicity on juror attitudes, or how jurors are affected by
sequestration during a long trial. Though there are problems concerning
the secrecy of jury room proceedings, some research should be under-
taken on juror attitudes, without seriously compromising that confiden-
tiality regarding publicity, and on the effects of sequestration of jurors
on their attitudes and their function.
The provisions of the codes of ethics of lawyers and judges which deal
with public statements about legal proceedings should be examined, and
possible changes should be considered.
6
Prior Guidance for the Media-Codes of Conduct for Journalists
Whether, and to what extent standards for journalistic conduct should
be specifically set forth is no new issue. Further, there remains the ques-
tion of whether any attempt to legislate standards is desirable or consti-
tutional, or whether in extreme situations involving important interests
(such as national security, the rights of a criminal defendant, or the pro-
tection of the physical well-being or privacy of an individual) some form
of legislative restraint is justified. If standards are not to be legislated,
they might be developed cooperatively by representatives of the bench,
bar and media (and this work might involve other citizens as well). An-
other alternative would be for the media to develop collective standards
[the Sigma Delta Chi standards are an example, but these might be sup-
plemented and updated] . Finally, each newspaper, radio or television sta-
tion might develop its own set of procedures governing the conduct of
its reporters and editors.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
47
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The argument in favor of standards includes several points. Journalism as
a profession ought to encourage responsibility among its members. A
common set of standards for conduct would encourage journalists to ex-
amine decisions about what news to seek and publish (and when to pub-
lish it), and more responsible journalism would result. The existence of
standards would give the public a set of criteria for evaluating media per-
formance. Public confidence in the media would be increased due to the
fact that the media had attempted to define standards for their own con-
duct and to live up to them. Further, the existence of common standards
might serve to restrain publication of material about which editors have
misgivings due to competitive pressures. Other professions have ethical
standards which voluntarily reduce competition in the interests of
greater responsibility. Journalistic standards, like those in the legal and
medical professions, could also serve the function of providing support to
individuals in withstanding pressure within their own organizations not
to make waves, or to produce a big story at the expense of accuracy and
fairness. If the media do not adopt voluntary standards, standards may
well be imposed from outside.
Opponents of standards might argue, however, that legislated standards
are an unconstitutional, or at least an inadvisable restraint on a free
press. Even voluntary standards, they might add, would result in a "chill-
ing" of press freedom, making it necessary for journalists to spend their
time consulting a code rather than seeking and publishing news. Also,
there is the problem of what gets left out of the standards. Is anything
not specifically covered fair game? Is it a good idea to express specific
standards of conduct, or is the profession and the public better pro-
tected by unwritten standards, understood and adhered to by a profes-
sion that claims to be one of honor and integrity? Has the experience of
other professions which have ethical standards been that such standards
do in fact improve conduct, or merely restrain competition?
Perhaps an overall code of conduct for journalists would be either too
specific to be acceptable, or too general to be useful. An alternative
might be a series of specific issue-oriented codes. Free press-fair trial
guidelines have already been covered. Other topics might include:
Use of confidential sources
What level of reliability should be required? Should tests of accuracy and
the basis for using and reporting information obtained from confidential
sources be specifically delineated? Should there be a different standard
when the source seeks out the reporter; when the source is committing a
crime in revealing the information; when the source is exploiting his
anonymity to subvert the legal process; when the source himself is rely-
ing on another person (not revealed to the reporter) for his information?
Would such standards help reporters and editors in dealing with sources,
and/or help the public evaluate unattributed news stories?
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
National security
The concept of national security information could be defined and stand-
ardized. A specific, limited definition might help the media decide what
to publish. Such standards might also clarify the distinction between
genuine national security information and the use of the designation to
conceal governmental action.
Individual privacy
Standards would delineate the types of information which would ordi-
narily not be published without a particular reason. Such information
might include personnel or credit records, health records, or specified
private areas of personal and family life. Standards as to when, how, and
under what circumstances, such information should be sought, accepted,
or published by the media should be set forth.
Libel/slander
It is not clear that there is any constitutional room for a new defamation
standard, but what about some voluntary guidelines? Specific standards
for the accuracy and relevance required before certain types of damag-
ing material could be published, would assist the protection of the indi-
viduals involved, and, at the same time, provide a standard of what the
public ought to be told.
Right of reply
While a legislative requirement of a right of reply in specifically defined
situations is of doubtful constitutionality, again some voluntary stand-
ards might be possible. Some definition of the circumstances in which a
reply should be sought or permitted, how a request or demand for one
should be treated, whether reference to some third party should be made
for a decision or for advice to the media, could be specifically set forth.
Careful consideration should be given to how any such standards might
be developed, and by whom. Alternatives include: legislation; voluntary
cooperation between bench, bar, media and others; collective voluntary
action by the media; and individual outlets voluntarily developing their
own standards. It is to be stressed that the existence of standards does
not imply that they would be mandatory, or that any sanctions need be
imposed for failure to meet them.
7
Post-Hoc Guidance-Monitoring the Media
With or without a specific code of conduct, the issue of whether and
how the media is to be monitored is a controversial one. There are a
whole range of possibilities:
Approved For Release 4004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
-One possibility is to have no monitoring at all, simply to have no
written code, or else a voluntary code for reference by journalists
and by the public, and let the free market be the ultimate judge of
journalistic conduct. This is possible if there are no standards or if
standards are developed by each individual media outlet, by media
groups collectively, by members of the media, the legal profession
and other citizens cooperatively, or even by legislatures.
-Another possibility is for each media outlet to designate a "reviewer,"
an individual or group which would pass on its performance. There
might be sanctions which need not be severe. For example, the reviewer
might require a retraction, apology or reply to be printed, or only a
requirement that the reviewer's decision be printed, or no mandatory
sanctions at all. The reviewer's decision might be non-binding only (e.g.,
recommendations of a correction, or a pre-publication recommendation
as to how or whether a story should be handled). The reviewer might
be a journalist, or might be drawn from the legal profession or the gen-
eral public.
-A third possibility is for the media collectively to form an association
(on the model of the local or state press associations now in existence),
which would review their activities and/or their compliance with any
standards that might exist. Again, the review could be binding or ad-
visory. Participation by individual outlets could, in any event, be vol-
untary, on a blanket or on a case-by-case basis.
-The fourth possibility is the creation of regional or local "news coun-
cils," reviewing groups drawn from members of the media, legal profes-
sion and the public, to whom specific charges and disputes are referred.
Again, their decisions can be either binding or merely advisory, and
participation can be voluntary.
-Finally, legislative standards for journalistic conduct could be re-
viewed by the courts, and whatever civil and/or criminal liabilities the
legislature could constitutionally attach or are applicable under present
law, could be imposed.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 04/11/01 IA- 88-01315R000200260001-7
Lase S u yes
The following are the cases which were presented at the sub-regional conferences of
the New England Conference on Conflicts Between the Media and the Law. Case
Study I was presented at all the sub-regional conferences. Case Study 2 was presented
at the Machester, Boston, Lakeville and Amherst sub-regional conferences. Case Study
3 was presented only at the Newport sub-regional conference.
Case Study 1 For the past month the Gulfport Daily Sentinel has published a series of
Free Press-Fair Trial articles on "Oil Rights for Sale," written by prize-winning investigative
Mr. Nesson, Mr. Chaves reporter Ted Harris and calling for the appointment of a special grand
jury to investigate allegations of corruption in the award of federal oil
leases on land and offshore, unsavory links between government officials
and oil company representatives, and fraudulent appraisals and bids.
In one of his stories, Harris described dramatic incidents in which a plant,
at the request of Harris, had successfully taken on two roles. First, he had
passed himself off as having great influence with government officials who
had power to grant oil leases and had asked for and received cash pay-
ments from oil company officials in exchange for giving them a promise
of favorable treatment on their bids. Then, he successfully deceived a gov-
ernment official by passing himself off as a "representative" of the oil
companies. He offered this official the cash previously obtained in ex-
change for promises of favorable treatment, and the official took the
money. Harris' story of the plant's exploits was one of the high points of
his series of articles, but the articles were by no means limited to these
two incidents or to this one government official. These deeds were ar-
ranged by Harris without his editor's knowledge, but once he hit "pay-
dirt," the Sentinel carried the story.
On April 15, a grand jury was convened in Gulfport by Federal Judge
Bolton, to hear evidence gathered by United States Attorney Jackson as
a result of the articles. At the first meeting of the grand jury, Judge Bol-
ton advised them in general of their duties and their relations to the
United States Attorney. In addition, he said, "I want to emphasize once
again that you are bound by rules of secrecy. Rule 10 of this court makes
plain that you may not disclose anything which transpires here unless you
are given explicit permission by the court. The same obligation of secrecy
is imposed by rule of other persons present at the grand jury proceedings,
such as stenographers. In this case, it is even more important than usual
that secrecy be maintained because of the substantial public interest in
this matter. Any publicity may jeopardize the investigation and preju-
dice the rights of innocent people. I warn you, therefore, that any viola-
tion of your obligation will be severely dealt with. I intend to take com-
parable measures with witnesses before the grand jury, their counsel
and the news media. Though they are not directly covered by Rule 10,
I am exercising my inherent power to protect the Court's processes. I
shall communicate to them, as I have to you, that they must not make
public, without leave of court, anything which transpires in the grand
jury room except, of course, that witnesses may keep their counsel in-
formed. The failure of any of the individuals or entities described to
comply with my order will be dealt with firmly by this court, to the full
extent of the law."
Approved For Release-2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
51
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
The judge then sent letters reflecting the above to news media in the area.
Reporter Harris was troubled by the court's order because rumors were
abroad that the grand jury had been convened only as a sop to public
opinion and that the U.S. Attorney would not press matters vigorously.
He concluded that he should keep close watch on the grand jury. He
found, however, that the judge's order was surprisingly effective, and
that he could learn little or nothing about what was happening.
Harris sought out one of the grand jurors, Harold Ripley, Professor of
Ethics at State College, reminded him of the grand jury's historic role as a
"people's tribunale" which was captive of neither prosecuting attorney
nor judge, and persuaded him to cooperate. Harris supplied Ripley with
information, and leads, which had not yet been presented by the U.S.
Attorney. These were intended to be a test of the U.S. Attorney's good
faith which would be measured by the degree to which he pursued these
materials as they were raised through questions asked by Ripley at
grand jury sessions. There ensued regular meetings between Harris and
Ripley in which they discussed in detail what had transpired, what
might be presented, and what had been omitted by the U.S. Attorney.
Harris concluded that his earliest fears were well founded, that U.S.
Attorney Jackson had deliberately decided to frustrate the investiga-
tion because it would lead directly to Senator Squire, who had been
largely responsible for the appointments of both Jackson and Judge
Bolton. After consulting with his editors, Harris decided to go to the
public on the matter. Reviving his earlier series, he drew on his conver-
sations with Ripley and published a series of articles whose context is
reflected in some of the headlines: "Why the Delay in Returning the
Indictment?"; "Coverup in Oil Deals?"; "Jackson: U.S. Attorney or
Oil Company Lawyer?"; "Judge Bolton's Gag Order and the Coverup";
"Senator Squire-Why Not Answer the Charges?"
Material began to flow to Harris not only from Ripley but from other
sources: e.g., (1) A handwritten unsigned communication by someone
purporting to be a member of the Senator's staff, implicating the Sena-
tor in receipt of bribes, followed by a phone call offering to identify
the caller and to supply evidence on receipt of $2,500. "I've been of-
fered that much to appear on a TV program in a mask, but would like
to give the story to you."; (2) Telephone calls by friends and family of
grand jurors reflecting what had, or had not, been presented to the
grand jury.
At a cocktail party, Harris ran into Judge Carter who was an old friend
of his, and who sat in the same district as Judge Bolton. Carter took
Harris to one side and said, "Don't ever tell anyone I told you this, but
watch yourself. Bolton is mad as hell. He told me that you were unfairly
threatening powerful government officials who have helped him, and if
you don't cut it out, he'll have your hide."
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
52
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
As Harris' stories increased in number and tempo and in their reliance on
material presented to the grand jury, Judge Bolton took several steps. He
questioned all the grand jurors, asking if any outsiders had talked to them
about the inquiry. All said no. He called Harris into court, at the request
of the U.S. Attorney, and warned him that he risked serious penalties if
he persisted in violating the secrecy order. He also directed Harris to turn
over to the court the names of any grand jurors, witnesses, or others who
were providing him with information as to what was transpiring before
the grand jury. Harris refused to supply the names and, the following day,
published a story called, "Gagging the Press-What Next in the Coverup?"
He referred to a "reliable source" as a basis for reporting Bolton's private
threat against Harris.
The next day, Harris and the plant were called before the grand jury and
asked to testify about the plant's personal dealings with both the oil com-
pany officials and the one government official, and Harris' involvement.
They testified only to the extent of giving what had previously been pub-
lished in the newspaper.
Three days later, the grand jury returned indictments charging a congress-
man, a Regional Administrator, and others, with several offenses, among
them: bribery, conspiracy to make false statements, the violation of pro-
cedural requirements in the award of oil leases, and income tax evasion.
Senator Squire was not mentioned in any of the indictments.
Judge Bolton also issued an order to show cause why Harris and the news-
paper company which employed him should not be held in contempt of
court for violating the gag order and refusing to reveal their sources. He
also asked the U.S. Attorney to convene a grand jury to consider whether
Harris, his plant friend, and any other identifiable sources had violated
any criminal statute, calling attention especially to the statutes making
it a crime to obstruct justice.
A prosecutor in Jackson's office resigned from office and confidentially
told Harris of occurrences within the grand jury-occurrences that Ripley
corroborated. The prosecutor reported that the members of the grand
jury had reported informally to Jackson that they had taken a vote
among themselves on whether Senator Squire was mixed up in the "mess,"
and had voted 13 to 9 that he was; that Jackson had urged the grand
jurors to exercise "great care and restraint in dealing with the U.S. Sena-
tor" and not to take action by so close a vote; and that the grand jury had
taken no further action as to the Senator.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
53
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Case Study 2 John Peter Burnwood is the chief investigative reporter for the Metropo-
Privacy lis Chronicle, the leading daily in the populous eastern state of Idyllia.
Mr. Miller, Mr. Linsky In addition, he does a five minute "spot" on the local television station's
KROC-TV evening news, based on the content of his daily column. As is
true of all good investigative reporters, Burnwood has numerous sources
of information through governmental officials, private investigators,
credit bureaus, banks and tipsters. His practice is to use these to the full-
est and let the chips fall as they may.
Burnwood currently is covering a Senate election campaign. Because of
a schism in the state's dominant political party, there are three major
candidates. The first is Alex Aphid, young, aggressive third-term con-
gressman from one of the Metropolis districts. The second is Bob Bump-
tious, the incumbent senator, a more senior, conservative politician
with three terms in the Senate behind him and the current chairman of
an influential committee. The third is Carla Cassandra, a former prose-
cutor who is now a popular, syndicated TV news commentator, the
first woman to run for the Senate in the state. She is one of the nation's
leading right-to-life advocates, a position that is extremely popular in
Idyllia because of its ethnic and religious composition.
The election is five days away. As a windup of Burnwood's month-long
coverage, he plans an in-depth profile of each of the three candidates,
publishing one a day. There is reason to assume that the other major
daily in the state is about to publish its own major series on the election
and has assigned its up-and-coming reporter, Ned Nosey, to the story.
Last night, an unmarked envelope was delivered to Burnwood. There was
no indication as to its source. In it were xerox copies of numerous docu-
ments that appeared to be from FBI files. The material pertained to
Aphid, Cassandra, and the two candidates for the governorship. There
was nothing about Bumptious. Burnwood, who has some familiarity
with material of this type from his days of covering the Justice Depart-
ment, has reason to believe that it is genuine; he also knows that, if
genuine, its release to him either is an intentional leak by the FBI or
the result of illicit conduct. Several telephone calls to friends and infor-
mation sources have revealed nothing conclusive about the documents.
The material on Aphid included a full financial report, which showed
Aphid's net worth, outstanding debts, and contained several unexplained
"slow-pay" and "no-pay" entries. In addition, there was a three-year-old
investigative report on Aphid, containing notes of an interview with one
of Aphid's neighbors. These suggest that Aphid conducts frequent, loud
parties attended by numerous bearded "hippie" types and that a distinc-
tive, sweet aroma frequently emanates from his apartment. Perhaps the
most interesting item pertaining to Aphid was a transcription of notes
allegedly made by Dr. Eric Enuresis, a prominent psychiatrist, in the
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
54
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
course of treating Aphid. These suggest the possibility of a potentially
disabling mental illness. A phone call to Dr. Enuresis yielded nothing
other than an invocation of the doctor-patient privilege and an off-
hand remark: "This is very strange, I have never had any dealings with
the press during my thirty years as a psychiatrist, but you are the second
reporter to call today."
Burnwood's column on Aphid contained comments suggesting that the
candidate lacked financial responsibility, emotional stability, and led
the kind of dissolute life that might not be appropriate for a member of
the Senate.
In preparing the profile of Senator Bumptious, Burnwood had another
of his contacts, Sheriff Brutus Lascivious Clodde, who is up for re-
election next year and has been supported by the Chronicle in the past,
search the Metropolis police records and, using a local computer terminal,
make an inquiry of the FBI's National Crime Information Center. This
produced rap sheet entries showing that, as a teenager, Bumptious had
been arrested for a hit-and-run vehicular homicide, but was never prose-
cuted. This disclosure by the Sheriff to Burnwood violated both state
law and Department of Justice regulations.
Late the night before the Bumptious story was due-very late, in fact-
Burnwood stopped at an out-of-the-way watering hole for a nightcap.
When he went to the rear of the bar to make a telephone call, he no-
ticed Bumptious in a hidden booth with a strikingly attractive woman
thirty years his junior. Bumptious appeared intoxicated, but not suf-
ficiently so as to prevent the pair from engaging in amorous activity.
Searching his memory, Burnwood recalled that the woman, Wanda Were-
wolf, had been arrested but not prosecuted for soliciting a year earlier.
The scene also was consistent with other reports Burnwood had received
about Bumptious' excessive drinking. The following day, Burnwood re-
ported these items to his readers under the headline, "Senator Bumptious
Involved in Car Death and Linked with Prostitute."
Senator Bumptious immediately brought suit against the City, the State,
the FBI, the Chronicle, and Burnwood for violating his civil rights by
improperly releasing this police data, and for defamatory innuendos in the
story. Damages against the newspaper and Burnwood in the amount of
$250,000 each have been requested, and defense of the action will be
protracted and costly. Finally, Judge Pettifogger, who was appointed to
the bench following years of loyal service to the party, has been asked
to direct Burnwood to testify as to his sources for the article. Werewolf
also has brought suit for damages.
Burnwood's investigations of Carla Cassandra revealed nothing of an un-
savory character. However, the documents purporting to be from the
FBI files contained three interesting items. First, a field agent's report,
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
55
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
in connection with a security clearance, of an interview with one of her
law professors, Dagby Dolt, indicated that Cassandra had gotten through
school by the "skin of her teeth," and either had "little aptitude for law
and hard work," or "had spent too much time with men." Second, a
twenty-five year old medical record indicated that, at age fifteen, Carla
had had an abortion. And, third, a report documented that Cassandra's
husband had been convicted of manslaughter for slaying his first wife in
a fit of passion, and had served five years in prison; that upon his release,
14 years ago, he had changed his name and moved more than 1,000 miles
from his former home to Metropolis to escape his past; that since his
arrival in Metropolis he not only has lived a blameless life, but has become
a pillar of Metropolis society and a patron of numerous charitable en-
deavors. Burnwood reported these items in his column on Cassandra with-
out editorial comment.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
56
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Case Study 3
Bench/Bar/Press Guidelines
Mr. Heymann
Part 1
Joe Tiger had been a prosecutor specializing in organized crime before he
became a private defense attorney. His life had been threatened and his
house had once been bombed by the mob which Tony Bester headed, but
Joe had never wavered in his determination to rid Ames of the mob he
hated. Thus, he was elated to hear on March 13, 1975, that the District
Attorney had at last got the goods on Tony-an eyewitness had seen
Tony and Albert Rough, a small-time associate, break the legs of a loan
shark victim. The victim would testify as to what had happened and so
would the eyewitness, thus rebutting Tony's claim that he was obviously
being framed for an event that allegedly happened in Ames while Tony
and Albert were in fact hiking in Maine.
When Albert, much to Joe's surprise, approached Joe to represent him,
Joe asked who had recommended him. Albert responded, "An aide of
the Governor's who also promised a pardon if I decide to back up Tony's
story." Joe heard Albert's admission of what had happened and his ac-
count of a message he had received from Tony through Tony's counsel,
Sam Slick. The message had said simply: "Watch what happens to the
eyewitness and consider whether you want to testify against me." Joe
agreed to represent Albert, but only for the purpose of attempting to
negotiate a plea. Two days later, the only other eyewitness was cut al-
most in half by a submachine gun as he left his home for work.
Albert thereupon told Joe that he had changed his mind and had decided
to stand trial with Tony, swearing to the hiking story. Joe said he could
not represent him in presenting perjurious testimony. Albert thereupon
retained another counsel, John Thomson, a close friend and former part-
ner of the presiding judge, James Moore. His counsel assured him that
the State's case looked very weak with only a single witness against two
consistent alibi stories. As the trial unfolded, Judge Moore's demeanor
seemed to reflect scepticism of the victim's story. Acquittal seemed cer-
tain to Bill Crimebeat, a Bugle reporter.
During a recess of the trial, the District Attorney told Joe Tiger of his
fears for the outcome, and of his irritation at Judge Moore's behavior. Joe
responded that he had some unspecified but "bombshell" evidence that
might or might not be privileged by the attorney-client privilege. The
District Attorney thereupon immediately asked Judge Moore to hold a
hearing outside the presence of the jury on the question of privilege.
Moore agreed but added quickly that he had an exceptionally strict
view of the privilege.
Judge Moore began the hearing, with the jury absent, by saying that he
was holding the hearing in open court on the understanding that nothing
in the hearing would be carried in the press or on television unless it was
later admitted into evidence before the jury. If there was any question
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
57
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
about this, he added, he would hold the hearing in his chambers. He
asked any reporter present who felt he could not comply with this to
leave the courtroom. Then Joe Tiger was called to the stand to testify
to the circumstances surrounding, but not the content of, Albert's
statements to him. Joe did describe to the startled courtroom the alleged
role of the Governor's aide. Judge Moore heard arguments from the
prosecutor but, before the defense had even argued, announced that he
felt the attorney-client privilege almost certainly barred use of even the
evidence as to the promised pardon. He stated that he would rule for-
mally on the question the next day.
After the hearing, Bill Crimebeat cornered Joe Tiger, whom he had
known from the latter's days as a prosecutor. He made a not-so-wild
guess. "Albert has told me about the threat," Crimebeat said. "Why
the hell didn't you do something about it?" Exhausted and reflecting
the feelings of guilt he'd felt for some time, Tiger instantly tried to
justify his failure to act, and, under the pressure of further questioning,
fully revealed what Albert had told him about his involvement in the
crime and Tony's threat to kill anyone who might testify against: him. As
soon as Crimebeat got back to the Bugle, he called Albert and told him
all that Joe revealed. Albert gasped audibly, didn't deny the story but
refused to discuss it further without his lawyer there.
Assume that two years previously another reporter for the Ames Bugle
had published the contents of a confession revealed in a hearing from
which the jury was excluded at a major criminal trial. The judge had then
decided that the confession was coerced but the jurors, who had not been
sequestered, read of the confession. The judge thereupon declared a mis-
trial, and the resulting public furor was immense.
The Ames District Attorney had proposed legislation defining the crime
of obstruction of justice to include anyone who knowingly published,
during a trial, materials that were obtained at a hearing from which the
jury was excluded. The legislation won the nearly unanimous assent of
the legislature until a newly formed organization of the local press and
television stations proposed their own alternative.
Each newspaper and station was to develop its own in-house standards
for covering trials and was to set up a system of review by an appropriate
editor both prior to publication and, if the editor was not informed of
the source of the story, in subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the
reporter. The Ames Bugle adopted the standards set forth for the State of
Washington (see Appendix which follows). The new organization, the
Ames Press and Television Society (APTS), agreed to general standards
which among other provisions:
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
58
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Appendix
1.
Required compliance in obtaining information with "accepted legal rules"
(e.g., theft) binding on all citizens; and
2
Precluded the publication of any information revealed in a hearing from
which the jury was excluded. There was a narrow exception to the guide-
lines "when the public interest manifestly requires prompt revelation."
To determine the propriety of the actions of any of its members, APTS
set up a review board of three editors with the power to censure or fine
the newspaper or station which violated one of the generally accepted
standards.
In this context, the Ames legislature tabled the proposed bill; and the
trial judge, who had threatened to exclude any representatives of the
Ames Bugle from hearings he held outside the presence of the jury in all
future cases, withdrew his action. He did, however, issue an informal
opinion denouncing the behavior of the Bugle reporter.
Statement of Principles of the The Bench, Bar and Press (comprising all media of mass communications)
Bench-Bar-Press of the of Washington:
State of Washington
(a) Recognize that freedom of news media is one of the fundamental lib-
erties guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States and that this basic freedom must be zealously preserved
and responsibly exercised.
(b) Are obliged to preserve the principle of the presumption of innocence
for those accused of a crime until there has been a finding of guilt in an
appropriate court of justice.
(c) Believe members of an organized society have the right to acquire
and impart information about their mutual interests. The right to dis-
seminate information should be exercised with discretion when public
disclosures might jeopardize the ends of justice.
(d) Have the responsibility to support the free flow of information, con-
sistent with the principles of the Constitution and this Preamble.
To promote a better understanding between the Bench and Bar of Wash-
ington and the Washington News Media, particularly in their efforts to
reconcile the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press and the
right to a fair, impartial trial, the following statement of principles,
mutually drawn and submitted for voluntary compliance, is recom-
mended to all members of these professions in Washington.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
59
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Principles
1
The News Media have the right and responsibility to print the truth. A
free and responsible news media enhances the administration of justice.
Members of the bench and bar should, within their respective canons of
legal ethics, cooperate with the news media in the reporting of the ad-
ministration of justice.
2
Parties to litigation have the right to have their causes tried fairly by an
impartial tribunal. Defendants in criminal cases are guaranteed this right
by the Constitutions of the United States and the various states.
3
No trial should be influenced by the pressure of publicity from news
media nor from public clamor, and lawyers and journalists share the
responsibility to prevent the creation of such pressures.
4
All news media should strive for objectivity and accuracy. The public
has a right to be informed. The accused has a right to be judged in an
atmosphere free from undue prejudice.
5
The news media recognizes the responsibility of the judge to preserve
order in the court and to seek the ends of justice by all those means avail-
able to him.
6
Decisions about handling the news rest with editors, but in the exercise
of news judgments the editor should remember that;
(a) An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
(b) Readers and listeners and viewers are potential jurors.
(c) No person's reputation should be injured needlessly.
7
The public is entitled to know how justice is being administered. How-
ever, no lawyer should exploit any medium of public information to
enhance his side of a pending case. It follows that the public prosecutor
should avoid taking unfair advantage of his position as an important
source of news; this shall not be construed to limit his obligation to
make available information to which the public is entitled.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
60
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
8
Proper journalistic and legal training should include instruction in the
meaning of constitutional rights to a fair trial, freedom of press, and the
role of both journalist and lawyer in guarding these rights.
ADOPTED March 26, 1966, in general session, by a joint committee
representing the following groups:
Washington State Supreme Court
Superior Court Judges' Association
Washington State Magistrates' Association
Washington State Bar Association
Washington Association of Sheriffs & Chiefs of Police
Washington State Prosecuting Attorneys' Association
Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington
Washington Newspaper Publishers Association
Washington State Association of Broadcasters
The Associated Press
United Press- International
School of Communications University of Washington
Guidelines for the Reporting of Criminal Proceedings
The proper administration of justice is the responsibility of the judiciary,
bar, the prosecution, law enforcement personnel, news media and the pub-
lic. None should relinquish its share in that responsibility or attempt to
override or regulate the judgment of the other. None should condone
injustices on the ground that they are infrequent.
The greatest news interest is usually engendered during the pretrial stage
of a criminal case. It is then that the maximum attention is received and
the greatest impact is made upon the public mind. It is then that the
greatest danger to a fair trial occurs. The bench, the bar and the news
media must exercise good judgment to balance the possible release of
prejudicial information with the real public interest. However, these con-
siderations are not necessarily applicable once a jury has been empaneled
in a case. It is inherent in the concept of freedom of the press that the
news media be free to report what occurs in public proceedings, such as
criminal trials. In the course of the trial it is the responsibility of the
bench to take appropriate measures to insure that the deliberations of
the jury are based upon what is presented to them in court.
These guidelines are proposed as a means of balancing the public's right
to be informed with the accused's right to a fair trial before an impartial
jury.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
61
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
1
It is appropriate to make public the following information concerning
the defendant:
(a) The defendant's name, age, residence, employment, marital status,
and similar background information. There should be no restraint on
biographical facts other than accuracy, good taste and judgment.
(b) The substance or text of the charge, such as complaint, indictment,
information or, where appropriate, the identity of the complaining
party.
(c) The identity of the investigating and arresting agency and the length
of the investigation.
(d) The circumstances immediately surrounding an arrest, including the
time and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, possession and use of
weapons, and a description of items seized at the time of arrest.
2
The release of certain types of information by law enforcement personnel,
the bench and the bar and the publication thereof by news media gen-
erally tends to create dangers of prejudice without serving a significant
law enforcement or public interest function. Therefore, all concerned
should be aware of the dangers of prejudice in making pretrial public
disclosures of the following:
(a) Opinions about a defendant's character, his guilt or innocence.
(b) Admissions, confessions or the contents of a statement or alibis
attributable to a defendant.
(c) References to the results of investigative procedures, such as
fingerprints, polygraph examinations, ballistic tests, or laboratory tests.
(d) Statements concerning the credibility or anticipated testimony of
prospective witnesses.
(e) Opinions concerning evidence or argument in the case, whether or
not it is anticipated that such evidence or argument will be used at
trial.
Exceptions may be in order if information to the public is essential to
the apprehension of a suspect, or where other public interests will be
served.
3
Prior criminal charges and convictions are matters of public record and
are available to the news media through police agencies or court clerks.
Law enforcement agencies should make such information available to
the news media after a legitimate inquiry. The public disclosure of this
information by the news media may be highly prejudicial without any
significant addition to the public's need to be informed. The publication
of such information should be carefully reviewed.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
4
Law enforcement and court personnel should not prevent the photo-
graphing of defendants when they are in public places outside the court-
room. They should not encourage pictures or televising nor should they
pose the defendant.
5
Photographs of a suspect may be released by law enforcement personnel
provided a valid law enforcement function is served thereby. It is proper
to disclose such information as may be necessary to enlist public assist-
ance in apprehending fugitives from justice. Such disclosure may include
photographs as well as records of prior arrests and convictions.
6
The news media are free to report what occurs in the course of the judi-
cial proceeding itself. The bench should utilize available measures, such
as cautionary instructions, sequestration of the jury and the holding of
hearings on evidence after the empaneling of the jury, to insure that the
jury's deliberations are based upon evidence presented to them in court.
7
It is improper for members of the bench-bar-news media or law enforce-
ment agencies to make available to the public any statement or informa-
tion for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a criminal trial.
8
Sensationalism should be avoided by all persons and agencies connected
with the trial or reporting of a criminal case.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
63
 Approved For Releap QQ4li1,101 : CCIIAr,-,FADS 88-01315R000200260001-7
The following list includes people who have participated in one or more meetings
organized and sponsored by the New England Conference on Conflicts Between the
Media and the Law, including sub-regional conferences, the Osgood Hill session and
meetings of the Steering Committee. Their affiliations are cited as of the time of
their participation.
Ruth I. Abrams
Justice
Massachusetts Superior Court
John Bart
Managing Editor
Amherst Record
Amherst, Massachusetts
Arthur A. Carrellas
Associate Justice
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Robert C. Achorn
Vice President and Editor
Worcester Telegram-Gazette
Worcester, Massachusetts
Richard Ahles
Vice-President for Public Affairs,
WFSB-TV
Hartford, Connecticut
Bailey Aldrich
Senior Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
Arthur Alpert
News Director, WJAR-TV
Providence, Rhode Island
Elaine S. Amendola
Attorney
Bridgeport, Connecticut
John R. Arden
Attorney
Southampton, Massachusetts
Joseph Balliro
Attorney
Boston, Massachusetts
Bartlett Barnes
Publisher, The Bristol Press
Bristol, Connecticut
Albert W. Barney
Chief Justice
Vermont Supreme Court
Edward J. Barshak
President, Boston Bar Association
Boston, Massachusetts
Melvin Bernstein
News Director, WNAC-TV
Boston, Massachusetts
James F. Bingham
Attorney
Stamford, Connecticut
Mal Boright
Editor, Valley News
White River Junction, Vermont
John P. Bourcier
Associate Justice
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Raymond A. Brighton
Editor, Portsmouth Herald
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Judith Brown
Editor and Publisher
Herald Publishing Company
New Britain, Connecticut
John A. Burgess
Attorney
Montpelier, Vermont
Dale Burk
Reporter, The Missoulian
Missoula, Missouri
Joseph Calista
Clerk, Rhode Island Supreme Court
John M. Callahan
District Attorney's Office
Northampton, Massachusetts
Eugene Carlson
Fellow, Nieman Found tion
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Abram Chayes
Professor, Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts
David Chemielewski
Reporter, Pawtucket Times
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Thomas Clifford
Attorney
Hartford, Connecticut
Eugene F. Cochran
Associate Justice
Rhode Island Superior Court
Charles Cohen
President
Hampden County Bar Association
Springfield, Massachusetts
Fred Coker
News Reporter, WMUR-TV
Manchester, New Hampshire
William Cole
President
Connecticut Bar Association
Jack Conway
Reporter
Waterbury Republican-American
Waterbury, Connecticut
Paul Corkery
Editor, Boston Magazine
Boston, Massachusetts
Gregory B. Craig
Public Defender's Office
New Haven, Connecticut
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
65
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Michael Craig
Edwin Diamond
Robert Estabrook
News Director, WGAN-TV
Professor of Political Science
Editor and Publisher
Portland, Maine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lakeville Journal
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lakeville, Connecticut
William Curran
Attorney
Marguerite M. Dolan
George Favre
Providence, Rhode Island
Attorney
Chief Editorial Writer
Turners Falls, Massachusetts
Providence Journal-Bulletin
Dennis Curtis
Providence, Rhode Island
Professor, Yale Law School
John F. Doris
New Haven, Connecticut
Associate Justice
Eugene Michael Fay
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Reporter, Daily Hampshire Gazette
Lewis Cuyler
Northampton, Massachusetts
Associate Editor
William Dougherty
North Adams Transcript
Chief Editorial Editor
Francis J. Fazzano
North Adams, Massachusetts
Nashua Telegraph
Associate Justice
Nashua, New Hampshire
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Brad Davis
Reporter, WFSB-TV
Paul A. Dgyon
Robert Ferrante
Hartford, Connecticut
Director, Department of Safety
News Director, WBGH
Division of State Police
Boston, Massachusetts
Joseph Day
Concord, New Hampshire
News Reporter, WCVB-TV
Sarah Fitzgerald
Needham, Massachusetts
John Driscoll
Conference Coordinator of the
Assistant Executive Editor
Five Sub-regional Conferences
George Del isle
The Boston Globe
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Reporter
Boston, Massachusetts
Springfield Daily News
J. Joseph Fitzgerald
Springfield, Massachusetts
Stephen Dunleavy
Chief Family Counselor, Family Court
Police Commissioner's Office
Providence, Rhode Island
William P. Densmore
Boston, Massachusetts
Journalist
Richard Flavin
Cambridge, Massachusetts
William Dwight, Jr.
Reporter, WBZ-TV
Editor and Publisher
Boston, Massachusetts
Albert E. DeRobbio
Holyoke Transcript- Telegram
Assistant Attorney General
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Fred W. Friendly
Providence, Rhode Island
Adviser on Communications
Ralph Elliott
Ford Foundation
Michael J. deSherbinin
Attorney
New York, New York
Editor and Publisher
Hartford, Connecticut
Amherst Record
Edward P. Gallogly
Amherst, Massachusetts
Warren Elly
Chief Judge of Family Court
News Director, WKNE
Providence, Rhode Island
Herbert F. DeSimone
Keene, New Hampshire
Director of Law Center
Thomas Gerber
Roger Williams Junior College
Valerie C. Epps
Editor and Assistant Publisher
Providence, Rhode Island
Assistant Professor
The Concord Monitor
Suffolk University Law School
Concord, New Hampshire
Boston, Massachusetts
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
66
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Loren Ghiglione
Jacob Hagopian
Jack Howard
Editor and Publisher
Magistrate, Federal District Court
Assistant Director
Southbridge Evening News
Providence, Rhode Island
The Twentieth Century Fund
Southbridge, Massachusetts
New York, New York
Roy A. Hammer
Anthony A. Giannini
Attorney
Michael Jozef Israels
Associate Justice
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorney
Rhode Island Superior Court
New York, New York
Tom Hanna
Peter Gillies
Reporter, Keene Sentinel
Michael Janeway
Attorney
Keene, New Hampshire
Executive Editor
Hartford, Connecticut
Atlantic Monthly
Robert Harrall
Boston, Massachusetts
Harry P. Glassman
Deputy State Court Administrator
Regional Justice
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Lois Joiner
Nieman Foundation
Staff
District 1, Maine
,
L. Scott Harshbarger
Harvard University
Elizabeth Goddard
Chief of the Public Protection Bureau
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Staff, Institute of Politics
Massachusetts Attorney General's
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Office
Alfred H. Joslin
Harvard University
Associate Justice
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Charles Hauser
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Executive Editor
Robert H. Goldman
Providence Journal-Bulletin
Patricia Joyce
Chairman, Bar-Press Committee
Providence, Rhode Island
Administrative Aide
Massachusetts Bar Association
Attorney General's Department
Robert Haydock, Jr.
Rhode Island
James Goodale
Attorney
Vice President and General Counsel
Boston, Massachusetts
Jackie Judd
The New York Times
News Director, WKXL Radio
New York, New York
Philip Heymann
Concord, New Hampshire
Professor, Harvard Law School
John Goodwin
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Walter Kane
State Court Administrator
Managing Editor
Bath-Brunswick Times Record
George V. Higgins
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Maine
Brunswick
Attorney and Author
,
Boston, Massachusetts
Thomas F. Kelleher
Thomas P. Guyer
Associate Justice
Editor, The Eagle-Times
Theodore Holmberg
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Claremont, New Hampshire
Editor and Publisher
Pawtucket Valley Times
William W. Keller
John P. Hackett
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Chief Justice
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Political Reporter
Providence Journal-Bulletin
Daniel Hovey
Rhode Island
Providence
Executive Director
Jonathan Kellogg
,
Connecticut Bar Association
News Editor, Associated Press
Concord, New Hampshire
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
67
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
John Kelly
Anthony Lewis
Arnold Markle
Reporter, WNAC-TV
Columnist, The New York Times
State Attorney
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
New Haven County, Connecticut
Francis M. Kiely
Roger B. Linscott
Peter R. Martin
Associate Judge
Editorial Manager
Vice President of Public Affairs and
U.S. District Court
Berkshire Evening Eagle
News, WCAX-TV
Rhode Island
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Burlington, Vermont
Daniel Kops
Martin Linsky
Amy McCombs
President, Kops-Monahan
Editor, The Real Paper
Program Manager, WFSB-TV
Communications Incorporated
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Hartford, Connecticut
New Haven, Connecticut
Ruth Lockwood
Joseph McGowan
Evelyn Kramer
Reporter, Danbury News-Times
Associated Press
City Editor
Danbury, Connecticut
Boston, Massachusetts
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Northampton, Massachusetts
John Lovell
Harry V. McKenna
Legal Affairs Reporter
Political Commentator, WEAN
Joseph Krowski
The Press Herald-Evening Express
Providence, Rhode Island
Reporter, Brockton Enterprise
Portland, Maine
Brockton, Massachusetts
Keven McKenna
K. Prescott Low
Attorney General's Department
Ronald R. Lagueux
Publisher, The Patriot Ledger
Rhode Island
Associate Justice
Quincy, Massachusetts
Rhode Island Superior Court
John S. McKiernan
Jon A. Lund
Associate Justice
Henry E. Laliberte
Attorney General
Rhode Island Superior Court
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
Maine
Rhode Island
Michael McMahon
F. MacBuckley
Assistant Managing Editor
Carter LaPrade
Attorney
Bangor Daily News
Attorney
Hartford, Connecticut
Bangor, Maine
New Haven, Connecticut
Reid MacCluggage
Richard T. McMahon
James Leavy
Assistant Managing Editor
Attorney
Attorney General's Department
Hartford Courant
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island
Hartford, Connecticut
Ellen McVey
Tenney Lehman
William M. Mackenzie
Staff, Rhode Island Commission to
Staff, Nieman Foundation
Associate Justice
Study Criminal Procedures
Harvard University
Rhode Island Superior Court
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Sal Micciche
Richard Mark
Assistant to the Editor
Timothy Leland
Student Intern, WFSB-TV
The Boston Globe
Sunday Editor, The Boston Globe
Hartford, Connecticut
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Harry L. Miles
Thomas H. Needham
William Parent
Attorney
Associate Justice
Editor in Chief
Amherst, Massachusetts
Rhode Island Superior Court
Daily Collegian
Amherst, Massachusetts
Arthur Miller
Charles Nesson
Professor, Harvard Law School
Professor, Harvard Law School
J. Rodman Paul
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Political Editor
The Concord Monitor
William Miller
Jon O. Newman
Concord, New Hampshire
Editor, The Boston Phoenix
Judge, U.S. District Court
Boston, Massachusetts
Connecticut
Neil Perry
Assignment Editor
William Mills
K. Robert Norling
Greenfield Recorder-Gazette
Assistant News Editor
Managing Editor
Greenfield, Massachusetts
Daily Collegian
The Concord Monitor
Amherst, Massachusetts
Concord, New Hampshire
Kenneth M. Pierce
Contributing Editor
John Monaghan
Don O. Noel, Jr.
Columbia Journalism Review
City Editor
Senior Correspondent, WFSB-TV
New York, New York
Providence Journal-Bulletin
Hartford, Connecticut
Providence, Rhode Island
Gregory Pilkington
David O'Brien
Reporter, WGBH-TV
Jonathan Moore
Staff Writer, The Boston Phoenix
Boston, Massachusetts
Director, Institute of Politics
Boston, Massachusetts
John F. Kennedy School of Government
William Plante
Harvard University
Lawrence O'Donnell
Executive Editor
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Attorney
Essex County Newspapers
Boston, Massachusetts
Newburyport, Massachusetts
John S. Moran
City Editor, Lynn Item
Gerard O'Neill
James Ragsdale
Lynn, Massachusetts
Editor of the Spotlight Team
Chief of Bureau
The Boston Globe
Associated Press
John F. Moriarty
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Judge
Holyoke, Massachusetts
John E. Orton III
Carmine Rao
Associate Justice
Attorney
James Murphy
Rhode Island Superior Court
Providence, Rhode Island
Managing Editor, Pawtucket Times
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Joseph Owens
Paul C. Reardon
Editorial Page Editor
Justice
Florence K. Murray
The Bridgeport Post
Supreme Judicial Court
Associate Justice
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Boston, Massachusetts
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Thomas J. Paoli no
William Reilly
Paul F. Murray
Associate Justice
Public Defender
Past President
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Bar Association
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
69
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Matthias J. Reynolds
Shelby Scott
James St. Clair
Attorney
Reporter, WBZ-TV
Attorney
Manchester, New Hampshire
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Caryl Rivers
James Segal
Jordan St. John
Associate Professor
State Representative
News Reporter, WWLP-TV
Boston University School of
Massachusetts
Springfield, Massachusetts
Public Communication
Boston, Massachusetts
Donald F. Shea
David L. Swearingen
Associate Justice
Chief of Bureau, Associated Press
David G. Roberts
Rhode Island Superior Court
Concord, New Hampshire
Justice
Maine Superior Court
Keith Silver
John I. Taylor
News Director, WWLP-TV
Vice President, The Boston Globe
B. J. Roche
Springfield, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Executive Editor
Daily Collegian
Stan Simon
Kenneth Thompson
Amherst, Massachusetts
Assistant City Editor
Chief Editorial Writer
The Hartford Courant
Boston Herald American
John A. Romano
Hartford, Connecticut
Boston, Massachusetts
State Senator
Rhode Island
James Smith
James C. Thomson, Jr.
Assistant City Editor
Curator, Nieman Foundation
Robert Rower
Springfield Daily News
Harvard University
Publisher, The Real Paper
Springfield, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Crocker Snow
William Tocco, Jr.
James C. Roy
Assistant to the Editor
Police Chief
Justice
The Boston Globe
Johnston, Rhode Island
Massachusetts Superior Court
Boston, Massachusetts
J. Warren Upson
James Rubin
Ronald L. Snow
Attorney
Correspondent, Associated Press
Attorney
Waterbury, Connecticut
Trenton, New Jersey
Concord, New Hampshire
George M. Vetter, Jr.
Jay Rubinow
Aviam Soifer
Attorney
Justice
Professor, University of
Providence, Rhode Island
Connecticut Superior Court
Connecticut Law School
Hartford, Connecticut
Mark Vogler
Warren B. Rudman
Reporter
Attorney General
Paul Solman
North Adams Transcript
New Hampshire
Associate Editor, The Real Paper
North Adams, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
John Sablon
James Wade
Reporter, WFSB-TV
Milton Stanzler
Attorney
Hartford, Connecticut
Attorney
Hartford, Connecticut
Providence, Rhode Island
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
70
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
Joseph W. Walsh
Chairman, Rhode Island Commission
to Study Criminal Procedures
Thomas H. Walsh
Attorney
Boston, Massachusetts
William Wasserman
Publisher and President
North Shore Weeklies
I pswich, Massachusetts
Ernst John Watts
Dean, National College of the
State Judiciary
University of Nevada
Reno, Nevada
Judith Wegner
Attorney General's Department
Rhode Island
Joseph R. Weisberger
Presiding Justice
Rhode Island Superior Court
Sidney Wernick
Associate Justice
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
James Wheeler
Managing Editor
Worcester Telegram
Worcester, Massachusetts
Herbert P. Wilkins
Associate Justice
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Robert B. Williamson
Former Chief Justice
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Lewis W. Wolfson
Professor of Communications
American University
Washington, D.C.
James V. Wyman
Metro Managing Editor
Providence Journal
Providence, Rhode Island
Mary Ellen Wynn
Attorney
New Haven, Connecticut
Adam Yarmolinsky
Ralph Waldo Emerson Professor of the
University
University of Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
Alice Yoakum
Attorney
Lakeville, Connecticut
Robert Yoakum
Syndicated Columnist
Lakeville, Connecticut
Howard Ziff
Professor of Journalistic Studies
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts
Kenneth W. Zwicker
Assistant Publisher
Keene Sentinel
Keene, New Hampshire
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7
71