REMARKS BY KAY GRAHAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 9, 2011
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: January 15, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
EXECUTIVE SE( ETARIATQ
ROUTING SLIP
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
DCI
2
DDCI
3
EXDIR
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
X
6
DDA
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/OLL
14
D/PAO
15
D/PERS
16
VC/NIC
17
S
X
18
19
20
21
22
xlQutive Secretary
15 JAN 86
Date
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
MEMORANDUM FOR: DDI
FROM: DCI
SUBJECT:. Remarks by Kay Graham
You may find the attached
interesting and might have some
ideas on who else around here might
benefit from it.
William J. Casey
Attachment:
Remarks by Kay Graham,
7 December 1985
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY
1150 15TH STREET, N.W. ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20071 ? [phone]
Terrorism and the Media
By
Katharine Graham
Chairman of the Board
The Washington Post Company
The English-Speaking Union of the Commonwealth
The Churchill Lecture
Guildhall
London
December 6, 1985
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Good evening. It's an enormous honor for me to be here, and
I'm grateful that many of you braved the rain and delayed a
mad dash to the country to attend this lecture. Ever since
the Treasure Houses of Britain opened in Washington, we know
all about the pleasures of country life here.
As I looked over the list of distinguished speakers who have
preceded me -- and as I contemplated the monumental and
intimidating legacy of the man in whose honor these lectures
are named -- I felt only too keenly my own inadequacies.
Churchill was the only journalist who later became a world
leader. I remember his inspirational voice on the radio from
across the ocean during the war. His heroic leadership,
articulated though his majestic command of the English
language, inspired embattled people to fight for democracy and
preserve our way of life.
I would not presume to address these cosmic issues of war and
peace or the future of the English-speaking world. My
background and my work equip me to speak of only one subject
with which Churchill was familiar: the press. Fortunately,
as he once said, "The press is an inspiring theme, especially
to those who get their living by it."
This evening I propose to speak of the press and its role in
one of the most challenging and dangerous phenomena of our
time: terrorism.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Only too frequently, in recent months, have your country and
mine been held in the grip of violent fanatics intent on
having their way by threatening or harming innocent people.
I am greatly concerned that terrorist attacks will increase in
the future -- in number, dimension and intensity. And because
the media and the terrorist are locked in a kind of mutual
dance of death, I am anxious that our role in covering
terrorism be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
However, local television stations and the printed press, with
which I am most familiar, have only a limited part to play in
the drama of terrorism. Network television is the star.
So to prepare for this talk, in addition to our own people, I
spoke with those directly involved. I spoke with several of
our network news executives and the anchorman of one of our
evening newscasts. I met with the heads of the CIA and the
FBI. I talked to people at our State Department who
specialize in the study of terrorism and the press. I spoke
to a Lebanese Shiite who is an adviser to one of our networks.
I even visited a psychiatrist who participates in terrorist
negotiations. I hope what I learned about America's terrorist
problems will have some relation to your own.
Let's construct a terrorist incident to discover what it tells
us about the nature of the beast.
Picture a warm and sunny day, not in Brighton or the Middle
East, but in Washington, D.C. The Israeli Prime Minister is
in town and is scheduled to meet the President. At 11:00
a.m., the leader of an obscure Muslim sect and several
accomplices armed with guns and machetes storm the
headquarters of B'nai B'rith, a Jewish service organization.
Three other members of the group seize the city's Islamic
Center. Two additional fanatics invade Washington's City
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Hall, killing a radio reporter in the process. Altogether,
the terrorists take 134 hostages in three buildings by
gunpoint, force them to the floor and threaten to kill them
unless their demands are met.
The police and FBI surround all three buildings. And, as
could be expected, the media descend on the scene en masse.
Live television pictures carrying the group's warnings and
demands soon go forth over the airwaves. One hundred and
thirty-four lives hang in the balance.
Before proceeding, let me assure you that this crisis actually
happened. On March 9, 1977, the Hanafi Muslims did indeed
carry out this terrorist attack, on the very day Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin was meeting with President Jimmy
Carter.
This incident, which fortunately ended with the surrender of
the terrorists and no further loss of life, reveals a number
of important characteristics of terrorism.
To begin with, it helps us define terrorism as goal-oriented.
It is violence against innocent people in order to achieve
generally political objectives. This distinguishes terrorism
from other forms of civil disturbance, including urban riots.
As we have found out in the United States and, alas, as you
are discovering here, urban riots express frustration and
rage. They rarely have specific objectives.
Even when terrorists issue no specific demands, as in the
recent hijacking of the Egyptian plane, the goals remain, no
matter how incoherent, vague or extremely broad they may be.
The random bombings of the IRA are designed to drive Britain
from Northern Ireland by, in effect, holding an entire nation
hostage. And surely the hijackers of the Egyptian plane
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
wanted, as a minimum, to destabilize further the political
structures of the Middle East.
A second characteristic is that, to be effective, acts of
terror require an audience. The terrorist has to communicate
his own ruthlessness -- his "stop-at-nothing" mentality - in
order to achieve his goals. Media coverage is essential to
his purpose.
Today's sophisticated technology -- which creates an instant
worldwide audience through satellite transmission -- has added
a new dimension.
Third, terrorism depends for its ultimate success on the high
value some societies place on individual human life.
Terrorist acts receive so much attention precisely because
they put this supreme value at risk. They are dangerous.
People could die and do. If the victim, society and
government were willing to place other concerns above human
life, the terrorist act could not succeed.
The particularly high regard in which our people hold human
life, together with massive and generally unrestrained media,
have made the United States and the United Kingdom especially
vulnerable to terrorism.
And I believe we must acknowledge that it has encountered a
fair degree of short-term success, at least in the case of the
United States.
For example, the year-long seizure of the American embassy in
Iran contributed to the downfall of the Carter presidency.
And terrorism in the Middle East encouraged, if it didn't
cause, America's military withdrawal from a region where our
presence had been declared by President Reagan to be "in the
national interest."
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
The success of terrorism in forcing political change has led
some observers to conclude: terrorism is war. It is a form
of warfare, moreover, in which media exposure is a powerful
weapon.
As a result, we are being encouraged to restrict our coverage
of terrorist actions. Mrs. Thatcher has proclaimed: "We must
try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of
the oxygen of publicity on which they depend." And many
people, including some reporters in the United States, share
her view.
Most of these observers call for voluntary restraint by the
media in covering terrorist actions. But some go so far as to
sanction government control -- censorship, in fact -- should
the media fail to respond.
Of course, the British and American governments have far
different abilities to limit news coverage. American
journalism operates under the First Amendment to our
Constitution. The First Amendment forbids any laws abridging
freedom of the press. We have no prior restraint, nor any
censorship by the government except during actual wartime.
Moreover, our media consists of four private, national
television networks, three national newspapers, countless
magazines and thousands of local newspapers and television
stations -- all independent of the government.
Britain is different in certain important respects. The BBC
is a publicly funded entity that can be influenced by
politicians. Even ITV is regulated by a board apppointed by
the government. There are D notices and an Official Secrets
Act by which the state can control the news to some extent.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
However, I am against aIU government-imposed restrictions on
the free flow of information about terrorist acts.
I believe even media-sponsored guidelines would be too broad
to be useful or would be forgotten in the heat of a crisis.
Instead, I am in favor of as full and complete coverage of
terrorism by the media as is possible. Here are my reasons.
To begin with, terrorist acts are impossible to ignore. They
are simply too big a story to pass unobserved. If the media
did not report them, rumor would abound. And rumors can do
much to enflame and worsen a crisis.
Second, the specialists with whom I spoke find no compelling
evidence that terrorist attacks would cease if the media
stopped covering them. On the contrary, they believe the
terrorists would only increase the number, scope and intensity
of their attacks.
One of our reporters visited several PLO terrorists in jail in
Israel. He was alarmed by the eagerness, the passion they
expressed to start killing again as soon as they got out. I
believe if we ignore them, the terrorists would turn up the
volume until the world could not avoid hearing, whether it
chose to listen or not.
Third, I believe our citizens have a right to know what the
government is doing to resolve crises and curb terrorist
attacks. Some of the solutions raise disturbing questions.
Just last month The Washington Post reported that to combat
terrorism, President Reagan had authorized a CIA covert
operation designed to undermine the Libyan regime headed by
Colonel Qaddafi. Earlier this year, we reported that a
counterterrorist group trained and supported by the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
CIA, though acting without its authorization, had planted a
car bomb in Lebanon that killed 80 people.
At the same time, I believe that the media can help the
government resolve terrorist crises and save lives, even
though it is not our role to do so.
Media coverage of terrorist events can be an insurance policy
for hostages. The minute hostages appear on television, they
may be somewhat safer. By giving the terrorists an identity,
we make them assume more responsibility for their captives.
The government also relies, to some extent, on the news media
for information about certain crises, information that can be
used to resolve them. One government official acknowledged to
me that American news organizations have more resources to
devote to these crises -- in money, people and technology --
than does the State Department. We also sometimes have
greater access to the perpetrators. In the Middle East,
government officials are often sealed in their bunkers.
Frequently terrorists refuse to speak to them. The terrorists
want to talk to reporters.
I believe these factors are important. They have contributed
to the resolution of terrorist crises and have helped save
lives.
But I would quickly add that covering terrorist acts presents
very real and exceedingly complex challenges as well. There
are limits to what the media can and should do.
Three critical issues, in particular, must be addressed. They
relate to covering terrorism, and they also apply to reporting
urban violence, such as we both have experienced. All touch
the central question of how the press can minimize its role as
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
a participant in the crisis and maximize its role as a
provider of information.
The first issue involves knowing how to gather and reveal
information without making things worse, without endangering
the lives of hostages or jeopardizing national security.
One television news executive said to me: "Errors that
threaten loss of life are permanent; others are temporary. If
we have to make mistakes, we want to make the temporary kind."
In the early days of covering urban violence and the first
terrorist attacks, the media would descend on the scene --
lights ablaze and cameras rolling -- in hot pursuit of the
news.
Sometimes we didn't know what could put lives at risk. And we
were often less than cooperative with the police attempting to
resolve the crisis.
During the Hanafi Muslim attack that I described earlier
there were live television reports that the police were
storming a building when, in fact, they were merely bringing
in food. Some reporters called in on public phone lines to
interview the terrorists inside the building. One interview
rekindled the rage of the terrorist leader, who had been on
the point of surrender.
These potential disasters have led to discussions between the
police and the media on how each could work better with the
other in future crises. A more professional approach and
mutual trust on both sides have resulted.
At the beginning of a crisis, most authorities now know it is
best to establish a central point where reliable information
can be disseminated as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
And the media, knowing that the authorities intend to help
them obtain the information they need, are much more willing
to cooperate.
In particular, the media are willing to -- and do -- withhold
information that is likely to endanger human life or
jeopardize national security.
During the American Embassy crisis in Iran, for example, one
of our Newsweek reporters became aware that six Americans
known to have been in the embassy were not being held captive
by the Iranians.
He concluded these men must have escaped to the Swedish or
Canadian Embassies. This in fact had occurred. However, we
and some others who also know it did not report the
information because we knew it would put lives in jeopardy.
And in the recent crisis in which a group of Lebanese Shiites
hijacked TWA Flight 847 with 153 hostages aboard, the media
learned -- but did not report -- that one hostage was a member
of the U. S. National Security Agency.
Tragically, however, we in the media have made mistakes. You
may recall that in April 1983, some 60 people were killed in a
bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. At the time, there
was coded radio traffic between Syria, where the operation was
being run, and Iran, which was supporting it.
Alas, one television network and a newspaper columnist
reported that the U.S. government had intercepted the traffic.
Shortly thereafter the traffic ceased. This undermined
efforts to capture the terrorist leaders and eliminated a
source of information about future attacks.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Five months later, apparently the same terrorists struck again
at the Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 servicemen were killed.
No one is absolutely sure the news reports caused the traffic
blackout. Some suspect they did. Whatever the answer, the
detailed report didn't help.
This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the
necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the
media and the authorities.
When the media obtains especially sensitive information, we
are willing to tell the authorities what we have learned and
what we plan to report. And while reserving-the right to make
the final decision ourselves, we are anxious to listen to
arguments about why information should not be aired.
A second challenging issue the media have to address is how to
prevent the terrorists from using the media as a platform for
their views.
I think we have to admit that terrorist groups receive more
attention and make their positions better known because of
their acts. Few people had even heard of groups like the
Hanafi Muslims or Basque Separatists before they carried out
terrorist attacks.
However, the media must make every attempt to minimize the
propaganda value of terrorist incidents and put the actions of
terrorists into perspective. We have an obligation to inform
our readers and viewers of their background, their demands and
what they hope to accomplish. But terrorists are criminals.
We must make sure we do not glorify them, or give them
unwarranted exposure to their point of view.
Part of the challenge is maintaining control over the
collection and dissemination of news during a crisis.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
We often think of terrorists as unsophisticated. But many are
media savy. They can and do arrange their activities to
maximize media exposure and ensure that the story is presented
their way. As one terrorist is supposed to have said to his
compatriot: "Don't shoot now. We're not in prime time."
Specifically, terrorists have done all of the following to
influence media coverage:
-- Arrange for press pools.
-- Grant exclusive interviews during which favored
reporters are given carefully selected
information.
-- Hold press conferences in which hostages and
others are made available to the press under
conditions imposed by the captors.
-- Provide videotapes that portray events as the
terrorists wish them to be portrayed.
-- And schedule the release of news and other events
so that television deadlines can be met.
There is a real danger that terrorists not only hijack
airplanes and hostages, but hijack the media as well.
To guard against this, the television networks in our country
rarely -- almost never -- allow terrorists to appear live.
They also resist using videotape provided by terrorists. If
there is no alternative, our commentators continually report
that the material is "terrorist-supplied" so that viewers can
evaluate its veracity and meaning.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Likewise, when terrorists make hostages available for
interviews, our commentators repeatedly indicate -- or they
should -- that the captives are speaking under duress.
When one network reporter interviewed the hostages in the
recent TWA hijacking by telephone, he said: "Walk away from
the phone if you're under duress, or if you don't want to
talk." One of them did walk away. Even when there is no
evident coercion, the networks repeat that terrorists are
standing by, although they are not visible on the screen.
We also try to identify carefully and repeatedly the
backgrounds and biases of the people we interview, including
the hostages themselves.
The Stockholm Syndrome, in which hostages develop positive
feelings toward their captors, is well known. Network
commentators point out again and again that the hostages
themselves may not be aware of their own motivations.
But I admit that we could do a better job. The original
spokesman for the hostages in the TWA crisis, for example,
appeared quite sympathetic to the terrorists' cause. He was
an employee of an oil company who had long lived in the Middle
East. Although this background information was reported by
the networks and by the press, I don't believe it was said
often enough.
The problem, the network executives told me, is that reporters
and editors get tired of saying the same thing over and over
and eventually stop. Thus it's possible for new viewers to
miss the crucial explanations.
But forbidding terrorists their platform goes beyond using
specific techniques. It is more an issue of exercising sound
editorial judgement.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Over the years, the media constantly have been confronted with
attempts at manipulation. In the days of the Vietnam war, for
example, we would get calls from protest groups saying, "We're
going to pour chicken blood all over the entrance to Dow
Chemical Company. Come cover this event." We didn't. But we
did cover a Buddhist monk who wished to be filmed setting fire
to himself.
How did we make the distinction? Here it was a question of
trivial versus serious intent and result, of low versus high
stakes. Clearly, the suicide was of cataclysmic importance to
the monk.
The point is we generally know when we are being manipulated,
and we've learned better how and where to draw the line,
though the decisions are often difficult.
A few years ago a Croatian terrorist group in a plane demanded
that its statement be printed in several newspapers, including
The Washington Post, before it would release 50 hostages. In
the end, we printed the statement in agate, the smallest type
size we have, in 37 copies of the paper at the end of our
press run. Now I'm not so sure we would accede to this demand
in any form.
Nor do I believe we should put convicted murderers on the air
to find out their political views.
The danger in terrorist crises is that reporters may develop a
Stockholm Syndrome of their own, that they may be pulled into
the terrorist's rhetoric. We may appear to be too respectful
of the perpetrators -- although the fact they may be holding
hostages at gunpoint tends to make us cautious.
That brings me to a third issue challenging the media: How
can we avoid bringing undue pressure on the government to
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
settle terrorist crises by whatever means, including acceding
to the terrorist's demands?
The State Department officials with whom I spoke say that
media coverage does indeed bring pressure on the government.
But not undue pressure. However, I believe there are pitfalls
of which the media should be exceedingly careful.
One is the amount of coverage devoted to a terrorist incident.
During a crisis, we all want to know what is happening. But
constant coverage can blow a terrorist incident far out of
proportion to its real importance. Overexposure can preoccupy
the public and the government to the exclusion of other
issues.
During the TWA crisis, our networks constantly interrupted
regularly scheduled programming with news flashes of dubious
importance. And one network devoted its entire 22-minute
evening newscast to the crisis. Many important topics were
ignored.
The media have become aware of these dangers. The network
coverage of the Achille Lauro incident was much more
restrained. Some say it was only because it was difficult to
cover and the crisis ended quickly. But the networks got
better notices from the critics and the public.
Another pitfall is the problem of interviewing the families of
hostages. There is a natural curiosity about how those near
and dear to the captured are reacting to the life-or-death
event. And the hostage families themselves often are anxious
to receive media attention and present their views to the
public.
But there is a fine line between legitimate inquiry and
exploitation of human sentiment. The media can go too far.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
Tasteless invasion of privacy can result. The ultimate horror
is the camera that awaits in ambush to record the family's
reaction to the news of some personal tragedy.
More to the point, there is a real danger that public opinion
can be unjustifiably influenced by exposure to the hostage
relatives and their views.
The nationwide television audience becomes, in a sense, an
extended family. We get to know these people intimately. Our
natural sympathies go out to them. We often come to share
their understandable desire to have their loved ones back at
any cost.
This can force a government's hand. Last May, Israel released
more than 1,000 Arab prisoners in exchange for three Israelis
being held in Lebanon. It was an action that ran counter to
Israeli policy. However, I heard that the appearances of the
families of the Israeli prisoners on television made the
Israeli government think it was a necessity.
I believe the media must be exceedingly careful with the
questions they ask the relatives and, of course, the hostages
themselves. When we ask if they agree with the government's
policy or its handling of the incident, what they would do if
they were in charge, or if they have messages for the
President, we are setting up a predictable tension: Hostages
and their families are, understandably, the most biased of
witnesses. The media must exercise the same standards with
them as they would with any other news source.
A final pitfall for the media is becoming, even inadvertently,
a negotiator during a crisis. But it's tough to avoid.
Simply by asking legitimate guestions -- such as "What are
your demands?" -- the media can become part of the negotiating
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
process. Questions that ask "What would you do if..." are
particularly dangerous.
And the question put to Nabih Berri, the Amal Shiite leader,
during the TWA crisis by the host of one of our morning news
shows was completely out of line and is so acknowledged. He
asked: "Do you have a message for the President?"
In fact, as much as we abhor terrorism, the media cannot be
diplomats, negotiators or agents for the government. If
terrorists or urban rioters believe we are -- if they believe,
for example, that we will turn over our unused tapes, or
pictures, or notes to the police -- they will not give us
information. They may even attack us. And this has occurred
in Great Britain.
All of these issues are made even more complex by the
individual nature of each crisis.
If every terrorist incident were the same, perhaps some useful
media guidelines could be developed and we'd have effective
standard operating procedures. One news executive, who
directed the Hanafi Muslim coverage, said to me: "The next
time a Muslim group attacks three buildings in Washington on
the day the Israeli Prime Minister comes to visit the
President, I'll know just what to do."
His wry comment speaks volumes about what the media are up
against. Covering terrorism is an art, not a science. We can
only thread our way through each incident and learn from what
has gone before.
Technology intensifies the problems. Before the advent of
satellites, there was a 24-hour delay between the moment news
was gathered and the moment it was broadcast. Indeed, what
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
appeared on the nightly news often had been in the morning
paper.
This meant that television news executives had at least some
amount of time in which to reflect, discuss and decide on
whether a story should be broadcast and how it should be
presented.
Today our networks have the technological capability to
present events live -- any time, any place. As a result, the
decisions about what to cover and how to cover are tougher.
And they must be made faster, sometimes on the spot. The
risks of making a mistake rise accordingly.
Intense competition in the news business raises the stakes
even more. The electronic media in the United States live or
die by their ratings, the number of viewers they attract. As
a result, each network wants to be the first with the most on
any big story. It's hard to stay cool in the face of this
pressure.
This has created some unseemly spectacles and poor news
decisions. During the TWA crisis, for example, the U.S.
networks ran promotion campaigns on the air and in print
touting the scoops and exclusives that each had obtained.
This commercialized and trivialized a dangerous and important
event.
The most dangerous potential result of unbridled competition
is what we have come to call the lowest-common-denominator
factor.
I believe that all of the serious, professional media -- print
and electronic, in our country and in yours and indeed around
the world -- are anxious to be as responsible as possible.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
We want to do nothing that would endanger human life or
national security. We are willing to cooperate with the
authorities in withholding information that could have those
consequences.
But, unfortunately, high standards of professionalism do not
guide every media organization nor every reporter. And I
regret to say that once one of these less scrupulous or less
careful people reports some piece of information, all the
media feel compelled to follow. Thus it is true: the least
responsible person involved in the process could determine the
level of coverage.
In conclusion, I believe these problems are serious. But in
spite of them, I believe the benefits of full disclosure far
outweigh any possible adverse consequences.
I believe the harm of restricting coverage far surpasses the
evils of broadcasting even erroneous or damaging information.
I believe freedom itself is at stake, the freedom Churchill
defended with such memorable eloquence and heroic resolve.
Both of our democracies rest of the belief, which the
centuries have proven true, that people can and do make
intelligent decisions about great issues if they have the
facts.
But to hear some politicians talk, you wouldn't think they
believed it. They appear to be afraid that people will
believe the terrorist's message and agree, not only to his
demands, but to his beliefs. And so they seek to muzzle the
media or enlist their support in the government's cause.
I think this is a fatal mistake. It is a slippery slope when
the media start to act on behalf of any interest, no matter
how worthy -- when editors decide what to print on the basis
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
1 7 -
of what they believe is good for people to know. It's
dangerous if we are asked to become a kind of super-political
agency. Thus I was very sorry to see the BBC give in to
government pressure to censor "Real Lives," even though it may
or may not have been poorly edited.
Ultimately, I believe a terrorist attack is a self-defeating
platform from which to present a case. Terrorists, in effect,
hang themselves whenever they act. They convey hatred,
violence, terror itself. There was no clearer image of what a
terrorist really is than the unforgettable picture of that
crazed man holding a gun to the head of the pilot aboard the
TWA jet. That said it all to me -- and, I believe, to the
world.
Suppressing or rationing the news provides no solution for the
long term. If a government cannot make its case through
democratic means in the face of violence, then I do believe
its policies must be misguided.
Witness the current events taking place in South Africa. The
government has banned television cameras from areas of unrest
and made it difficult for print journalists to report what is
happening. The government may have succeeded in limiting the
news coverage and moving it off the screen and the front page,
but the killing is worse than ever. Censorship won't work in
the long run.
As a former managing editor of The Washington Post recently
said, "Whenever any government attempts to hide its actions,
the assumption will be made that it has something to hide and
what is being hidden is more often than not sinister.
Deception always is dangerous, always found out, and always
boomerangs to cripple the deceivers."
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0
In short, I believe the media serve the interests of democracy
best by gathering the news and reporting facts as best they
can. When it comes to covering terrorism, the challenges are
great, the responsibilities heavy and the answers elusive.
Everyone searches for clear-cut solutions to the problems, but
there are none. As someone remarked, there are no easy
answers or even complex ones. There are only complex choices.
I believe having experienced people at the helm, exercising
sound judgement on the basis of high professional standards is
the best we can ask for. But I also believe it is all we
should ask for.
With information freely provided, decision-making can rest in
the hands of the people, where it ultimately belongs. Without
the facts, we inevitably surrender our decision-making power
to others. We surrender our ability to control our own fates.
The blessings or rreeaom ana the contributions our democratic
societies have made for hundreds of years make me believe this
is too great a price to pay.
Publicity may be the oxygen of terrorists. But I say this:
News is the lifeblood of liberty. If the terrorists succeed
in depriving us of freedom, their victory will be far greater
than they ever hoped and far worse than we ever feared. Let
it never come to pass.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/09: CIA-RDP88B00443R001804400035-0