AUSTRIAN BUREAU COMMENTS - TRUMP- CONN REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 19, 2012
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: October 10, 1979
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2012/09/19 : CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
41-
fl ONS G 14/11-
(26..,
10 October
MEM 1979ORANDUM FOR: Chief, Daily Reporting Division MAU-9079
SUBJECT Austrian Bureau Comments - Trump-Conn Report
1-.11) LN I IA L.
I.
ass
. Attached are original comments by bureau staff editors
an and
on further comments by
received, next week when
tor
I hope to pass
on a montn's leave at the time this was
e re urns. I have no serious disagreements with
their various points, but perhaps more of a sense of Alla vu, a realization
that many of these suggestions were actual practice in the not too distant
past, and perhaps a bit more skepticism about the extent to which some of
their suggestions could be implemented.
B. My own comments follow:
1. There is a fundamental conflict between current FBIS policy that
emphasizes the need for high quality field copy that requires little
or no further editing, and the suggestions Trump-uonn make regarding
doing more pure "editing" by professionals in Hqs and leaving "copy
editing" to lower-paid mechanics. The goal of finished copy fram the
field was of course to minimize Hqs editing by a reduced staff using
computers, video-editing terminals1 an a more continuous, split-shift
basis, as well as to make all major corrections in the field where this
is best done in close teamwork with the monitors. Trump-uonnts emphasis
here suggests some misunderstanding of fundamentals--FBIS is not and
cannot be a lively Washington POST, New York DiaLY NEUS, jazzing up
copy and translations to attract readers?FB] S editors are slaves of
their radio, press agency, and foreign press sources to a much greater
degree than are U.S. newspaper editors. That is, "just the facts," no
or ninimal embellishment or aleeration, within the limits of good, clear
translations. And is "editing" separable from "copy editing," and if
it is, what does FBIS do with its editors when they come home to Hqs,
if copy editors are doing their jobs?
2. Trump-Conn's speculation on the "high" attrition rate in 1978 is
not necessarily valid; I believe this had more to do with same unwise
recruiting/hiriqg decisions made from about 1974-76 or 77, several of
than lacked areal desire to serve overseas, others having working
wives, and still others simply L.-1E6 L.a t:Iloiees in the first place.
Drudgery has always been an element in DR work in the past, and it did
not produce such high attrition before; I suggest the explanation lies
more in selecting same people who were from the start not well suited
to FBIS work at home or abroad.
3. FBIS over the years has had several good training programs on paper.
Implementation has been something else, training usaally suffering for
lack of well-qualifed, field-experienced senior editors as
enough staff to allow training time. I recall that during
tenure as DRD Special Assistant, he had a regular workshop project going
aimed at training new editors on editing practices, includng field uses.
Any new or revived program will require more bodies--and time
to training. Is DRD now staffed to do this? l'ilerprishe key
C UNf ID ENT IM
yno DY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2012/09/19 : CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
DNFIDENTIAL
P. 3 -- Trump-Conn comment Vienna
8. Trump-Conn suggestions under Rotation (pp 20 ff) mostly reflect what I have
perceived to be the present situation, i.e., many editors already spend 60-70
percent of their time overseas, the rest at Hqs, we try to provide sound area
familiarization through FSI courses, etc. where time permits, and we should
perhaps try to stabilize Hqs assignments a bit more so that, at the least, new
editors could be reared by the same supervilor for, say, the first 12 months.
9. It is interesting that Trump-Conn propose a more substantively oriented
morning meeting. I am not sanguine this will necessarily provide better use
of available pages or better "perspective"; they mem to slight the amount of
inter-branch coordination that does take place during the day, as new material
comes in, and existing practices regarding cross-reffing items affecting two
quite different geographical areas. Perhaps the fact that FBIS for years has
not had its morning briefing and the former "Pink Sheet" officer who kept top
management informed of substantive and coverage developments has led to some
loss of communications, attention, and interest in top staffers that has, in
turn, made editors feel "no one cares" anymore.
?, .... ?.
????? .........
??.... ..........
10. I agr4e quite strongly with Trump-Conn remarks on recruiting new editor
talent with more emphasis on journalistic ranks. Given the eternal overcrowded
nature of the journalistic profession, FBIS should have no trouble, with its
competitive salary and benefits, in recruiting more "true" journalists with
2-3 years actual experience behind them and their rough edges polished nicely.
Suggestions regarding more foreign-language training preparatory for assignment
abroad are not novel; it would of course be useful in many cases, if FBIS can
spare the time, but local language is not as essential as for Foreign Service
Officers constantly engaged in representational liaison with host country diplomats.
And where a bureau covers a broad region of 12-14 countries, the local language
is of more use for living convenience than for operational value in the office.
11. While it is self-evident that better-trained editors assigned to the field
will do better, the lIck of a true FBIS field bureau in the immediate Washington
area?such as the old ECB?will, unless rectified, inevitably make it necessary
to rely either on the present expensive Panama/Okinawa TDY program or let the
bureaus to which new people are assigned perform the role. Most Trump-Conn
suggestions here are samewhat ingenuous and naive. I do not subscribe to the
idea that FESS field editors somehow will gain much of use by "developing sources
and contacts" in the field and rely less on "radio, television, magazines and
newspapers." This is a fatuous remark raising serious questions about the
basic understanding Trump & Conn had of what FBIS' mission is, and their ignorance
of Embassy and Station missions overseas as well as proscriptions against such
contacts with the working press, especially foreign press correspondents. (p.45)
12. Trump-Conn remarks on DR automation retrace well-known ground, and I see
nothing novel or original in their suggestions not already known to FBIS
management. If their suggestions (p. 47) mean they believe all field monitors
should ultimately be equipped with automated VDT termainals and be used as the
first and sole inputters into a computerized system, theh they don't fully
understand the limitations of many monitors or the cost implications for field
bureaus worldwide. FBIS would spend millions for equipment to save thoudands
in salaries for the lowe6t-paid teletypists, whose main jobs would be foisted
upon monitors whose prized skillaare language, not teletypipg ability.
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
--- ? ? ...........
O_NFIDENTIAlz..,
P. 2 - Trump-Conn comment Vienna
4. The quettion of "teaching news judgment" by "professional" editors
from Washington newspapers or wire services is curious: it implies that
these people somehow have a unique knowledge or talent lacking among
FBIS senior editors and experienced personnel generally. This is naive.
Some would argue that most intelligent persons are born with an inherent
sense of judgment that includes "news" or "intelligence" judgment; I think
there may be some truth in that, but I doubt whether we need sfAk the widdam
of Soloman only from Washington newspaper foreign news editors. Our own
long experience, our consumers, and our intelligence requirements form the
basis for our own FBIS "news judgment." This can be taught best on the
Wire, first of all, as well as the Did) branches. It would do no harm to
bring in outsiders for special lectures or discussions ofjudgment, but I
would not expect any miraculous revelations from such professionals. If we
restored an East Coast Bureau in the Hqs area, we could again provide more
real life training in news judgment without the TDY expense.
6. Suggestions regarding a reborn "Managing Editor" and responsibilities
vis-ma -vis the brarch chiefs pose a dilemma. If "general priorities" of
stories would be determined by the Managing Editor, how does that enhance
the interest in his work for a DR branch chief and his editors? This is
a rather flawed, fuzzy proposal, I submit. The C/DRD and his deputy and
special assistant should have maximum time and attention to the DRI) product,
and not - -I hope?be overly concerned with purely "managerial" functions such
as attending meetinEs, panels, liaising with outside offices, etc. Bob Scheuer,
once the "king of the L'ounting House" in the old DR, fulfilled precisely the
functions proposed here, but then he was eminently qualified for that job.
Our present Managing Editor staff is of course nothing at all like that, add
is misnamed as indicated by Trump-Conn.
6.Trump-Conn write as if DR branch chiefs were not responsible for training
new editors. This, and other clues, suggest they really didn't grasp very
well what the functions are. Or has this changed? DR branch chiefs, and the
Wire chief, deputy chief and senior editors, all should be directly in line
for training new personnel.
7. Morale: I question Trump-Conn's .assumption that the "something of a nadir"
in morale results from largely lack of challenge in the work. So far as I
am aware, the nature of this work has not really changed much since 1966-67.
There has, however, been a large number of retirements by senior personnel
who used to care a lot about product quality. I wonder if this loss is not
more directly a cause of low morale--the old guard has gone, no new one has
developed any espkit de corps. Perhaps also there is--as I have heard when
in Washington--e perception among new people that FBIS top management is
now less interested in LILY REPORT quality than before. I think at least
two things can be done to stimulate better morale among new people: a) start
their training on the frontlines of the FBIS Wire, rather than the DR, with
the Wire having sufficient experienced staff to provide for a mentor who can
devote considerable time to training new people; the Wire also provides an
early taste of work more closely resembling field work, a faster pace and
broad geographic exposure to the whole world. b) Re-establish an East Coast
bureau-with a real coverage mission, editors and monitors--that can provide
more training time in a real situation and encourage new editors. I see
little chance of adding much "creativity" in the DR publishing duties--by
definition, FBIS is obliged to follow our foreign sources and not over-edit
or rewrite materials as any newspaper does freely. L_ Li I \ i F I I 1 I- Ni 11AI ,_,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140009 9
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2012/09/19 : CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
P. 4 Tnmp-Conn comment Vienna
13. To achieve the goal of making DR editing work more interesting and less
mechanical, perhaps the time has come--when a revised automation system has
been developed, and in conjunction with the spreading use of computer storage,
"SAFE" and the like in Headquarters--to seriously reconsider a proposal I made
some 15 years ago that never got beyond desk: To make a radical
change to a completely wirefiled Daily Report, using-FBIS computer storage,
staffing around the clock, and keeping all our reporting an a current basis
with no backlogs. There would continue to be the main wire, with worldwide
coverage just as now; there also would be regional wires corresponding to
the present eight books, or perhaps a fewer number possible by judicious
combining; primary service would be to( consumers using quiet EXtel-type
printers, or into their own small computer or large computer storage--in the
latter case, the consumer could each morning "read his mail"--the regional
items filed into his computer overnight ky FBIS editors, or if he chose to
have only an EXtel prinLer, he would have his book available when he arrived
at work the same day, not 1-2 days later as is now. There would still be the
possibility of a printed DR for circulation to libraries, outside consumers,
etc, by using computer-to-eiroofiche or computer-to-print modes, as appropriate,
but these would no longer be a primary concern. On the positive side, this
would eliminate the typist bottleneck, and the artificial delays imposed by
the DR .V.61 7-3:30, Monday-Friday work schedule: consumers would have a much
more current product. On the negative side, more shift work would be involved,
but this would not necessatily be as heavy on grate shifty as one would think,
since worldwide there is not much copy arriving from the field during these
hours.
This would enable FBIS to "publish" by a main and regional wires the entire
field take, not just 4/5ths of it.
cc: Chief, Operations Group Chief, FBIS Austrian Bureau
Attachments:
Comments by
and
lassociate ed.)
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
.......... ????
25X1
.........
25X1'
......... ?.
25X1
25X1
..... ?,. ?..
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5?"I
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Daily Report
THROUGH:
FROM:
Chief, FBIS Vienna,
1 October 1979
Division
Austria
Senior Editor, FBIS Vienna, Austria
SUBJECT: Trump-Conn Report
1. My first reaction to the Trump-Conn report was one
of shock. The two consultants had really been able to graig
the frustrations and drudgery of working for the Daily Report.
I had expected an innocuous report similiar to those produced
by the FAT team or by those group sessions at
2. I thought the report was very accurate and the recom-
mendations--at least most of them--were well-founded, attainable
and, indeed, necessary if the Daily Report as a product and as
a place to work is to be improved. I strongly favor all the
"significant recommendations" pointed out in
letter to the Director dated 7 September 1979.
3. I disagree with the Trump-Conn report on the following
points:
a) Page 10: "News judgment should be taught by pro-
fessional editors." While some FBIS editorial duties parallel
those of media journalists and editors, I think the "news judg-
ment" needed by FBIS editors could be better developed through
a closer working relationship with our primary consumers at HUS
and at the State Department.
===
STAT
STAT:
?-.. .......
..?.. ......
. . *.' ...... . . . .
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
b) Page 45: "Editors in the field (must) develop
sources and contacts, so that they rely not only on radio,
television, magazines and newspapers, but also primary sources."
This is not a good idea.
c) Page 55: Eric Pace, The New York Times: "Tell
the CIA to hire trucks and deliver the Reports under the door
of correspondents every hour on the hour."
Page 55-56: Jay Mathews, The Washington Post:
"The Post and three or four other newspapgre'would pay any-
thing for a direct feed" of the FBIS wire.
The primary consumers for the FBIS product are
not and should never be the open media.
4. Finally, let me restate my strong agreement with the
recommendations for change in the Daily Report. If the
Trump-Conn recommendations are considered and implemented,
including the recommendation on page 40 that the front cover
of the Daily Report include "a logo stylizing the geographic
areas of the various books", then FBIS should also consider
changing the name from the Daily Report to the Daily Planet.
You will have created a SUPER JOB and a SUPER PRODUCT.
STAT:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
1.
Paragraph or two at beginning of the Daily Report hightighting
that day's events in the area would be useful for regular
consumers--BBC's Summary for Eastern Europe is a useful tool for
editors in reading in.
2. Occasiopn use of maps in the Daily Report would be a good idea
.:
ordinary commercial maps as opposed to specially prepared
illustrations--eg. to illustrate location of speech, as when
Bulgarian leader Zhivkov chooses Blagoevgrad as location of
speech to army officers, i.e. in controversial Bulgarian-
Yugoslav border area of Macedonia, or to illustrate the extent
and location of earthquake damage.
3. Difficult to see point of carteons in a publication like the
Daily Report, although illustration of speaker could be of
visual interest (like Daily Telegraph's Parliamentary Reports--
cameras not allowed in parliament).
4. Double column formate and use of boldface headings could
only improve appearance of Daily Report. Agree that DR covers
should not be so self-effacing (The Economist reported that its
policy of lei arresting covers boosted sales).
'' '''' .......... ' .
.-?. ..... .? ......
5. Agree with suggestion that editors in training visit some kind
of journalism course and rub shoulders with working journalists,.
which could 4m help them to acquire judgment of what kind of
events provoke international repercussions and what kind of
stories need really fast handling. It could also help theta
learn to present material--*how editorial reports should be
presented, being clear about attribution, extracting salient
points for fyi's--and also to distinguish our work from that
of a journalist on a daily newspaper.
Another--strongly urged--suggestion: to have FBIS spelling
(apart from proper names) conform to Webster's.
..........
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5
AS A RELATIVE NEWOOKER TO EBIS I found the report sensible and perceptive.
I am generally in agreement with the conclusions of the report and would
especially emphasize my agreement with the conclusions an the looks.otthe 4
finished product and the atmosphere of the working areas. I disagreswith the
,
? ?
? 7... .......... ?
..........
? ...........
? ............ ?
.suggestion to give editors exposure to reporters. I would suggest instead mars
exposure to the intelligence community and processes with particular emphasis ,
'requirements. I would also strongly urge a complete revision of thiveditor
handbook as soon as possible.
ple
? .......
.. . . . . ..........
? ? ? ? .......
? ? ........... ? ?
? ';?-??i???-????
- ?
,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/19: CIA-RDP94-00798R000200140005-5