TRUMP-CONN REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 19, 2012
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: October 15, 1979
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2012/09/19 : CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
ERAT1 WUP
15 October 1979
MAT 9007
MEMORANDUM TO: Chief, Daily Reporting Division
SUBJECT ? Trump-Conn Report
*I. OBSERVATIONS
Upon a close reading of the Trump-Conn report, I find that it is
simplistic, repetitious, contradictory ani to a great extent belabors
the obvious withNiffering detailed practical solutions.
The main thrust of the report, indeed what is described as the
"basic problem," is that of improving the morale of DAILY REPORT
editors. The report suggests that by providing the editors with a
more structured training program, greater challenges, more authority
and a perkier working environment where they can experience pride in
an recognition of their work, bordom, restlessness and discouragement
would magically disappear. This the psychological anproach commonly
applied in private inlustry to soften the debilitating effects of
assembly line iolirums. How can anyone argue with this, if it is true?
How loes the report slIggest we accomplish this? We learn that
first we shouli have a more agRressive recruitment posture, utilizing
journeyman elitors in fiell interviews aimed at those with journalism
backgrounds or interests. Thi,?vwe are alreaiy loing. I fail to see
how FBIS, in Particular the DaiTY Reporting Division, can be any more
aggressive that it already is. From my experience as -7)R7.) projects
officer in charge of recruitment, I can assure you that the number of
applicants and qualifications are not a .problem. If we chose, we could
be literally inundated with applications. Thus, I feel that recruiting
trips are an unnecessary waste of time, effort and money. Where we
are hurting is in tie area of minority recruitment, particularly
regarling Blacks.
The report basis much of its argument on the fact that some
elitors left the )RD in 1978; "a rather horrenious attrition of close
of all elitors." Yet it fails to go ito detail as to what
prompted the exodus. How many were for reasons of marriage or personal
problems? How many transfered to other FBIS components on rotation?
How mahy left the editorial ranks through promotion? In other words,
how many actually left for reasons of poor morale?
Next, the report suggests that a structured training program,
including substantive knowledge, would not only better prepare the
elitor, but
woull imp rove morale. Continuing, the report mal(es the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
STAT
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
-2-
obvious point that too many trainers are "ruinous from the standpoint of
a structured training program," advocating that a "buddy" system be
implemented. Yes, this may be true, but do we really want or need only
a structured training program in Headquarters? Can an unstructured program
or a combination of both be just as effective? However efficient a buddy
system of instruction may be, I fail to grasp how this differs from the idea
of too many trainers being ruinous. With the buddy system, you would have
as many and vatted training programs as the number of trainees, not to
speak of the horrendous effect it would have on production and assignments.
On page 12, the report suggests that "those returning from their- first
tour should be employed in training new editors at the DAILY REPRT
desks ...." Further on the same page, the report suggests that "more
senior editors ... would supervise the training ...." On page 15, the
report recommends that "a managing editor,oe*ecutive editor, or editor-
in-chief ... would supervise training of newly hired editors" On page 16,
the report recommends that "the duties of the branch chiefs should be
expanded to include training of new editors." What I want to know is
who is in charge of the "structured" training?
Now that we've trained these people, how to we provide them with
challenging work utilizing their talents effectively in a perky
atmosphere? Well, first of all we learn we are not editors doing editorial
work but mere druges in the worst job in FBIS using silly pencil marks
to change a word here ani there and checking spelling and punctustion
which is neither challenging nor does it provide the editor with sufficient
work! I find the latter claim a bit old since one-Of the difficulties in
involving book and branch chiefs in training and other tasks when I was
Jill) projects officer was the vociferous and constant complaint that the
overwhelming workload prevented this.
The report suggests that to accomplish our above-mentioned goals, we
should revamp the actual editing process, hiring qualified Personnel as
an interposing step between the field editor and ')AILY REPORT editor to
per7orm the tahks of sorting, captialization, punctuation, proofing and
so on. This would then allow the editor time to concentrate on more
fulfilling and important tasks such as substantive editing, "rewriting,"
selecting, organizing, "revising" ani so on.
It is my opinion that hiring part-time editors to perform the more
mechanical functions would be merely adding an unnecessary step in the
editing process. The report maintains that the tasks of counting words,
capitalizing, and in general making those silly pencil marks are going
to draw people of intelligence and dedication, "tapping a new pool of
talent" and providing an element of stability and continuity to the editing
of the books. This, the report concludes, would have a remarkable effect
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
-3-
on the final product. That belief is at best naive. What makes the report
think that if this type of work is not attractive to editors, it will be
to this "new pool of talent?"
Regarding "rewriting" and "revising" copy, I don't think Trump and
Conn really came to grips with what FBIS is all about. Sure, there are
noncommunist items of stAlght reportage that could be more heavily
edited, but rewritten? I have strong doubts. Combining items, excerpting,
writing editorial reports, more liberal use of editorial notations,
cross-referencing, all these are legitimate editorial functions and
should be utilized to the fullest. No orris asking or wants the editors
to be creative--that's not ourpurpose, leave that to the analysts--but
commonsense, intelligence? that we need a lot of.
The report also recommends that the editors be relieved of proof-
reading chores. I am in fll agreement. Hiring proofreaders wo.Ild free
the editors to concentrate on more important tasks such as training,
quality control and organizing and preparing cony for the next day's book.
Itwould also make unnecessary the staggered hours concept of coming to
work at 5 am aril eliminate the need to add one more level of editorial
intervention with the introduction of copy editors wwho would capitalize,
punctuate and count lines.
In discussing the practice of rotating editors from area to area
without allegedly allowing them time to acquire area knowledge and expertise,
the report cites such comments as "sometimes a new editor in the field will
make a change ani an 'analyst at Headquarters will think there is a new
policy." A bit farfetched in my opinion and I would think more derogatory
of analysts than editors. "The JAILY REPORTS are renarkedly good ?given
the qualifications of the personnel," which the report imnlies is a
criticism of editorial expertise. Now that sound lilt-something an analyst
would say, if vou will pardon my preljudice.
According to the report, this is evidence that editors should become
more specialized in the areas they hannen to be working, noting that being
generalists or at least being bounced hither and yon from assignment to
assignment leads to errors of fact and editing which "do not reflect the
accuracy and dependability and authority for which FBIS has become known."
The report fails to realize that tis has been the practice for years; i.e.
having rotatable editors with generalized knowledge. So, how come FBIS
has such a good reputation? Or, to put it another way, why all of a sudden
is this practice wrong when we've been doing it for yegrs and buil ling
a solid reputation? Is this an example of the snobbishness or jealousy of
specialized labor?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
7:4
r--
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
-4-
The report does make some good points, one being the morning
meeting needing greater interchange between branch chiefs and the
attendance of a senior analyst. The morning meeting is definitely one
area that could be improved upon.
Regarding the section on environment, I find it quite amusing that
thd report thinks the DAILY REPORT should hum with activity. I suggest
we recruit a professional hummer with the job description "Happy Hummer"
so as to accurately reflect his duties and so as to provide the necessary
background accompaniment to our happy editors.
I also had to chuckle over the reference to "flying squads" of
editors rushing thither and yon over the globe as FBIS firemen putting
out all those nasty little brushfires. Sounds great, very glamorous,
but not really worth the effort since it is not needed that often and in
most cases can be accomplished by using editors already in the field.
Perhaps this might be a viable concept in the future if we continue the
trend toward minibureaus where staffing is tight.
One point in the report I wholeheartedly endorse is the idea of all
bureaus periodically evaluating and classifying raiio and press sources.
This would be of great benefit to DAILY REPORT editors, especially new
ones.
Whereas the report strongly urges the adoption of a "net7s of the
week in review" section in order to bring into focus unrelated events,
I strongly urge that it not be adolted. This is not the job of the
DAILY REPORT, which provides packapel raw intelligence, but rather more
of a furikion of the analysts. In addition, this type of feature would
eventually have a life of its own and consume immense amounts of resources,
besides competing with the weekly Trends. It wo.ild also raise questions
of classification and be vulnerable to strong criticism.
On another point, the report suggests th-,t to resolve the problem
of having to determine the number of pages according to available typists
the whole typing operation be contracted out, including proofreading. This
is somewhat surprising considering that earlier the report points out the
drawbacks of utilizing contract typists, stating: "I t is a credit to
the Managing Editor's Staff that 342 pages were typed and that for tbet
of the month close to 400 pages were typed daily." The report misses
the point that eliminating inhouse typing was part of an unsuccessful
attempt at automation and that the present setup is a compromise solution
as an interum measure anticipating further attempts to automate.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
DeClassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
-5-
II. SUGGESTIONS
1. Recruitment
I believe we can improve our recruitment of minorities by
exploiting the numerous Black elucational institutions in the D.C.
area. This can be lone through personal contact with guidance counselors
arid advisors at these institutions who could be briefed on FBIS and what
it does. In addition tours of FBIS Headquarters and briefings for area
Black college students could be instituted.
Instead of relying wholely on application forms and files which
to a certain extent fail to take into consideration FBIS needs, I suggest
we correspond directly with applicants rather than going through non-FBIS
offices. We might also draw up an FBIS questionaire to be filled in by
those applicants we are interested in from a review of their files. Attached
to the questionaire would be a general description of what FBIS is and just
exactly what it does. This would not only give applicants a better ilea of
what they are applying for, but would also give us a better idea if we
want their services. As it now stands, few applicants come in for personal
interviews knowing just what type of job the are applying for, only that
it's a position with the CIA. In other words, use the Agency recruitment
system to select prospective candidates by reviewing their applications
anl files, but once interested, we should correspond with them directly
via the above-mentioned description and questionaire. Only then, if we
are still interested, would we ask that a personal interview be scheluled.
2. Training
The person resoolsible for training new DR) elitors should be
the projects officer, who soull establish a for al training program
emphasizing FBIS style and format, particularly how it apolies to work
on the DAILY REPORT. This program should include briefings on just what
the DAILY REPORT is and how it's used, what the iuties and responsibilities
of an editor are. In this effort, the assistance of branch chiefs should
he enlisted. The wire dhief should be responsible for general training
in field and wire procedures when the editors are assigned to the wire
before going overseas or before being assgned to Panama or Okinawa for
field training. The senior editor on each book would, unier this program,
be in charge of providing daily guidance as needed to the new editor once
they have completed the formal training program which should not last
more than two weeks.
3. Proofreading
I am all in favor of hiring proofreaders in order to i'ree the
elitors to concentrate on more important tasks. The time saved could be
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
-6-
used for training, quality control, book preparation and so on. There
should be at least two readers per branch trained in proofreading and typing
in the event MES needs assistance.
4. DAILY REPORT Layout
Any effort to improve the readability of the books, not just
looks, is a worthwhile goal. This inclu!es more reaiable type, double
instead of singlg columns, more subtitles to break up lengthy items, but
not cartoons and maps which lo nothing to add to but rather deftract from
the substance of the items.
5. Morning Meeting
I would like to see during the morning meetings more input from
branch chiefsregarling what is being published in that day's books and
in what manner. That the lead stroy is anl how it is going to be handled.
After all, just what is the purpose Ofe the meeting? To my mind, it is
to brief the 'AMU chief on imformation received and what it to be published.
It is also to provide an opportunity for branches and ME3 to exchange
information and make recommendations. Only that which affects the
production of that day's )A7LY REPORT or proluction in general should be
discussed. All other issues shoull be al!ressed in separate meetingsfor
that purpose if necessary.
6. Quality Control
Although barely touched upon in the report, quality control
is to my mind one of the most important aspects of the AAILY REPORT.
I strongly urge that a quality control system be set up unbar the authovity
of the )RD deputy chief in which not only copy but how a bureau handled
a significant .situntion or event would be critiqued. All comment and
recommendations T,ould be channeled from the senior elitor thr-ugh the branch
chief to the ARD deputy chief who would periolically extrapolate appropriate
comment for forwarding to the bureau involved. This system would also apply
to )RD eliting and book composition.
uhief, Athens Unit
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140004-6
:STAT