Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 22, 2004
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 29, 1977
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP88-01315R000200260001-7.pdf4.43 MB
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 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' 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 (212) 759-0900 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 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 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