SPY OR NO SPY, GET DANILOFF BACK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000706170001-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 23, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 28, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/08/23: CIA-RDP90-00965R000706170001-3
I
\ ARTICLE A Mmsk_
ON PAGE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
28 September 1986
Spy or no spy,
get Daniloff back
I have a little question for you and I'd like to
see a show of hands: How many of you think
that American journalist Nicholas Daniloff really
might be a spy after all?
I think I see a few hands out there.
Nobody in my profession believes this, of
course. Though we are a normally skeptical lot
willing to believe the worst about anybody,
Daniloff is one of us.
And so when he is picked up on the streets of
Moscow with what the Soviets say is classified
material, we know it is a frame-up and that he is
as pure and innocent as the driven snow.
Or at least we are supposed to say that public-
ly. And this is because American journalists are
not spies. Soviet journalists are. And Soviet phy-
sicists. And Soviet diplomats. And Soviet every-
thing-elm. But not American journalists.
When an American reporter is arrested, he is a
victim and a dupe and a hostage. When a Soviet
is arrested, he is guilty.
Newsweek summed up this mind-set perfectly
in its Sept. 22 issue. Keep in mind this is from a
news story: "Neither Nicholas Daniloff, the re-
porter arrested on trumped-up charges, nor Gen-
nady Zakharov, the Soviet agent caught red-hand-
ed, was free to go home."
The New York Times and other newspapers
merely say that Daniloff and Zakharov are "both
accused of espionage."
Which is the simple fact. Zakharov was picked
up in possession ofdmaterial that was fed to him
by U.S. intelligence sources. Daniloff was picked
up with material that was fed to him by Soviet
intelligence sources.
The difference? Well, we believe Zakharov real-
ly was a spy, recruiting American agents. And we
believe Daniloff really was not a spy, but was set
up by the Russians in revenge for the arrest of
Zakharov.
And I, personally, believe that. I believe
Daniloff is innocent. Because I have no reason to
believe otherwise.
But the world of reporters and spying is a lot
muddier than most people suspect. American
journalists have spied for this country. Some have
been quite proud of it.
This is not supposed to go on today. At least
not too much. The CIA said some years ago that
it no longer uses journalists except in "life or
death" matters. Whatever those are.
And when Ronald Reagan says Daniloff is an
innocent hostage, I believe him.
But if Ronald Reagan knew Daniloff was an
American spy, would he say anything different?
Would he say to the Russians: "Oh, yeah.
Daniloff. A reporter who spies for us all the time.
I guess you better shoot him."
Newsweek also ran an article containing this
intriguing line: "Clearly, there is no comparing
the KGB's systematic use of journalists as full-
time spies and the CIA's occasional, informal cul-
tivation of newsmen."
What? How's that again? You mean it's a mat-
ter of hours? Forty hours a week for the KGB
and you're a systematic spy? Ten hours a week
for the CIA and you're a cultivated newsman?
I don't buy it. If you're a newsman, you're a
newsman. Not a part-time tipster for the CIA.
Why not? Why shouldn't you "help out" your
country by spying a little every now and then?
Two reasons. First, that is not the role of an
independent press. The press is not an agency of
the government and reporters are not agents of
the government, full- or part-time. Second, such
"occasional, informal" cultivation by the CIA en-
dangers all newsmen.
It sure endangered Daniloff. Don't you figure
that the KGB believes all American newsmen are
really spies? In 1976, the Senate Intelligence
Committee said the CIA had covert relations
with about 50 newsmen. That is supposed to be
over now, but do we expect the KGB to believe
that?
I have read a whole bunch of articles trying to
figure out who goofed first in the Daniloff-Za-
kharov mess. Some say we goofed by grabbing
Zakharov and then refusing him bail, 'breaking
some kind of gentleman's agreement we have
with the Russians. Others say the Russians goofed
by grabbing an innocent American newsmen in-
stead of grabbing an innocent American business-
man. The press here does not get nearly as upset
if a businessman is grabbed.
I say: Who cares who goofed first? Let's swap
these two and get down to the far more impor-
tant matter of limiting the nuclear arms race.
If that would make Daniloff look like a spy, he
can correct that by telling his story when he
comes home.
Daniloff won't be hurt one bit by all this. He'll
get book contracts and speaking fees and a made-
for-TV movie out of it.
Zakharov probably will get a one-way ticket to
Siberia.
See? There is justice in this world.
m Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/08/23: CIA-RDP90-00965R000706170001-3