LETTER TO HONORABLE HUGH S. CUMMING, JR. FROMALLEN W. DULLES

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 02119519
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: April 5, 2018
• Case Number: F-2016-01964
• Publication Date: September 10, 1959

Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
� kinr9 a 11".
'1ALL
b.e.;
10 .c_ie emb�r 1959
The Honorable Hugh S. Ctunraing, Jr.
Director of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Hugh:
I enclose a memorandum together with a summary
of the Soviet press, radio and TV coverage of the Vice
President's visit to the U.5,R,
Undoubtedly you have prepared something similar
and I should be interested to have State's views and any com-
ments you have on the attached memorandum, particularly if
you have a different view as to the extent and nature of the
coverage.
Copies of the memorandum and summary have also
been sent to George Allen for USIA.'s views and comments.
Enclosure
AWD/ji
1.- DCI
1 - DDCI
1 - ER
Sincerely,
Allen W. Dulles
Director
rr
(b)(3)
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
\ Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
� ptember 1959
/
Corparative Summary of oviet Coverage of the ice resident's Visit
. Coverage of the Vice President's trip by Pravda and Lsvestia
was fairly extensive, but a sizeable proportion was given to rebuttal
to Nixon's remarks. Total coverage by each was about half that given
to the Mikoyan visit by the New York Times. Pravda and lzvestia
provided the texts of Nixon's arrival and exhibition opening speeches,
lzvestia alone the television address and Pravda alone the farewell
speech. All other statements were scantily and nonobjectively
summarized.
Z. Regional press coverage of the trip throughout the USSR was
meager. Of a wide selection of newspapers surveyed, none published
any verbatim texts or even extensive quotations from Nixon's public
statements. This was in striking contrast to the attention accorded
to the Mikoyan and Koslov trips in American newspapers. Hoviet
regional papers at
P.
ost devoted one-tenth as much space to the Nixon
A comparison of coverage in cities visited � the example
selected for close study Was Leningrad for the Nixon visit and Detroit
for both Mikoyan and Kozlov showed in every case at least four
times, and usually much more, space given by each of the US newspapers.
In the case of large, comparable cities not visited -- Tashkent and
St. Louis -- the difference
St. Louis Dispatch giving o
Vostolta.
$ substantially greater,with the
20 times the space given by Pravda
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
�
3. Radio Moscow carried the Vice President's arrival, departure,
d exhibition spe ches (the last only in Xnglish) *rid summaries of
some other statements. The summaries broadcast, like the TASS
news vice accounts, *ratted various statements praising tho US
way of life and implying criticism of certain Soviet policies. For
example, the "Kitchen Debate" account in Pravda and Radio Moscow.
gave 62 sentences to Khrushchev's remarks and II to Nixonsuppressing
totally the Vice President's points and derogating his stand.
4. The Vice President's TV address was carried only, n the
Moscow 'third program, hick has a relatively limited broadcast
range and audience it is normally used only for music). Thorough
checking indicates that the speech was relayed or retransmitted by
any
prior
Moscow or regional domestic radio or TV station. More.
only odynn o notice of the speech, carried only one hour
he address, misleadingly said it mould be carried on the
"second program" channel which at the sch.eduird time broadcast
only music, with no explanation.
5. Soviet regional broadcasts not only failed to carry any znajor
statements, but only two - Kiev and Yerevan � devoted snore than
cursory attention to the Vice President's whole trip. Of 43 major
regional radio, monitored by one of our stetions� only eight were
heard to broadcast al:D: references to the Nixon tour.
2
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
6..
Po sh trip
CO
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
�
�
eacted in a predictable way to the Vice Preside
sots to all audiences gave little criore than the
to
barest news on arrlv*1 and departureand no comment on popular
reactions or the importance of the visit.
7. As a postscript. it may be noted that Soviet media have
continued intermittent criticism and attempted rebuttal of some of
the Vice President's arguments since his return. It should *lsa be
borne in mind that the Soviet press end radio accompanied the visit
of the Vice President and the showing of our Exhibition in Sokolniki
Park with a running drumfire of criticism of American We, attempting
to discredit the imago of America presented by both.
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO211951
-emetitb-ess�etiaa�
Radio Propaganda Branch
FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF OPERATIONS
SPECIAL MEMORANDUM
SOVIET RADIO AND PRESS COVERAGE
OF VICE PRESIDENT NIXON'S TRIP TO THE USSR
4 September 1959
Mr. Garthoff, ONE,
Prepared for: for the Director
Information Copy for: Mr. Carey
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
� �
-0144-GlAztr-If&E�-eNtY�
SOVIET RADIO AND PRESS CpVERAGE
OF VICE PRESIDENT NIXON'S TRIP TO THE USSR
1. The Over-all Propaganda Pattern 1
Mbscow's propaganda approach mingled approval of the Vice
President's visit with sharp censure of specific U.S. policies
and statements by Nixon.
2. 144jor Points of Criticism 1
Captive Nations Week and U.S. military bases abroad were the
chief targets of criticism. Rebuttals to certain statements
by Nixon have persisted intermittently in propaganda through
August.
3. Extent of Radio Coverage 3
Radio Mbscow provided fairly thorough coverage of the Vice
President's activities, though not of all his public state-
ments. Soviet regional broadcasts paid very little attention
to the visit.
4. Extent of Press Coverage 4
PRAVDA and IZVESTIA each gave Nixon's visit about half as
many column inches of wordage as the New York TIMES gave Mikoyan's
U.S. visit, but only slightly fewer than the TIMES gave Kozlov's.
Soviet regional papers devoted at best one-tenth as much space
to Nixon's visit as Detroit and St. Louis papers devoted to
Mikoyan's.
5. Radio and Press Coverage of Nixon's Public Statements . . . . 6
Ch list of Nixon's principal public statements, with details of
Soviet radio and press handling.)
OteklUIAL U.S.Z WLT
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
� �
FF
1
SOVIET RADIO AND PRESS COVERAGE
OF VICE PRESIDENT NIXON'S TRIP TO THE USSR
1. The Over-all Propaganda Pattern
Moscow's over-all propaganda approach to the Vice President's
USSR visit and the SO.Kolniki exhibition mingled guarded ap-
proval of the general purposes of such exchanges with sharp
censure of specific aspects of the U.S. attitude. Critical
and sometimes carping remarks about the Vice President's state-
ments and about U.S. policies were interjected into propa-
ganda for domestic and foreign audiences alike. Radio
Moscow did, however, seem anxious to present a somewhat more
objective account of Nixon's activities to North American
than to other audiences.
Moscow's treatment of Nixon differed from its treatment of
prior Western visitors in one notable respect--a difference
traceable to the Vice President's own frank approach as well
as to Xhrushchev's readiness to engage in open debate. Soviet
comment and reportage are normally studiously cordial to visitors,
avoiding personal criticisms of the visitor and deemphasizing
areas of discord between the visitor's country and the USSR. In
Nixon's case, however, only about half of Moscow's propaganda
could be classified as favorable or neutral toward the Vice
President. The other half consisted of rebuttals to his argu-
ments in behalf of U.S. policy and criticisms of certain of his
activities.
2. Major Points of Criticism
The coincidence of Captive Nations Week with Nixon's visit was
clearly the principal point of irritation. The moderate number
of full commentaries devoted to the issue by Radio Moscow were
not especially bitter, but the issue was brought up repeatedly
in reports of Nixon's activities, in propaganda on the U.S.
exhibition, and in speeches by Khrushchev. The general tone
was one of amazement and regret that such a "cold war" develop-
ment should coincide with efforts to improve relations. Peking
and East European radios were more openly bitter than Moscow about
this "vicious slander."
Orrta
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519_
�
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2
The continued presence of U.S. bases abroad was the second most
frequently mentioned issue. The test ban problem, in keeping with
Moscow's relative silence on this subject in recent weeks, was
less often mentioned. During Nixon's stay both in Moscow and in
the provinces, broadcasts repeatedly reported "awkward" questions
asked Nixon by Soviet workers on the issues of Captive Nations
Week and U.S. military bases.
The Vice President was the target of a more personal attack for
his alleged attempt to give "alms" of 100 rubles to a Soviet
worker. The worker's letter to TRUD protesting this "rude and un-
forgivable" act was reported fully to Radio Moscow's home and
foreign audiences on 25 July. Nixon's denial of the Soviet
version of the incident, in his TV speech to the Soviet people,
drew a prompt counterdenial from Radio Moscow's home service,
in the form of an interview with the allegedly insulted worker
on 2 August.
Detailed rebuttal to Nixon's speech at the U.S. exhibition came
in the form of letters to the editor published by PRAVDA and
IZVESTIA and broadcast in the Soviet home service. Letters from
"ordinary workers" took issue primarily with Nixon's state-
ments about U.S. prosperity, arguing that he "simply concealed
contradictions in capitalist society." Other letters objected
to the statement that "nobody in the world" knows better than
President Eisenhower what war is. Additional letters to nearly
all the Soviet central newspapers from visitors to the U.S.
exhibition rebutted statements about U.S. prosperity, although
without specific reference to Nixon.
Prompt home service reaction to Nixon's TV speech rebutted his
arguments on the issue of U.S. military bases abroad as well as
his denial that he had offered "alms" to the market worker. Press
comment, in IZVESTIA on 4 August, concentrated on the issue of
military bases, professing disappointment that Nixon did not
discuss their abolition but tried to justify their existence. A
lengthy home service talk on 6 August endeavored to rebut in
detail Nixon's references to U.S. disarmament initiatives,
especially in regard to nuclear weapons.
Radio Moscow's foreign-language comment�principally a talk by
Viktorov broadcast widely on 2 and 3 August--acknowledged that
the TV speech contained "many good words and interesting ideas."
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO211951
111
OFFICIAL U3E ONLY
3
But the commentator went on to criticize in standard terminology
Nixon's defense of U.S. bases, his "failure to explain" the
proclamation of Captive Nations Week, and his alleged effort to
"distort" the history of Soviet foreign policy.
Intermittent criticism of certain of Nixon's arguments has
continued since his departure. On 14 and 18 August RED STAR
articles that returned to Nixon's TV speech were broadcast in
the home service. The first routinely scored the Vice President's
defense of U.S. bases abroad. The second provided the first
detailed response to Nixon's statement that the United States
gained no territory as a result of the two world wars. In his
widely publicized speech at Veshenskaya on 30 August Khrushchev
said that Nixon had expressed "sober views" in Moscow, that he
nonetheless continued to "err" in his understanding of the
Soviet Union, and that in his American Legion speech he even
reverted to "the typical language of MeCarth,yito reactionaries."
Extent of Radio Coverage
Radio Moscow reported in some detail all of Nixon's travels,
visits, and receptions in the USSR--though by no means all his
statements--to the Soviet and North American audiences. Less
detailed coverage for Moscow's other foreign audiences included at
least brief reports on all of his major activities in the USSR.
Moscow broadcasts to all audiences, however, provided only
minimal publicity for Nixon's trip to Warsaw; succinct news items
reported little more than his arrival and departure, without
comment.
The total volume of publicity for Nixon's visit to the USSR--in
broadcasts to domestic and foreign audiences, taken together--was
only half that devoted to British Prime Minister Macmillan's
visit in February of this year. Total volume about equaled Moscow's
attention to the U.S. visits of Miloyan and Kozlov. Soviet home
service broadcasts, considered separately, gave all three of these
prior visits slightly more attention than Nixon's.
Soviet regional broadcasts carried very few references to the
trip, with only Kiev and Yerevan devoting more than the most
cursory attention to Nixon's activities. Of a total of 43
regional radios monitored at one FBIS station, only Kiev, Yerevan,
Baku, and Alma Ata on the republican level, and Lvov, Odessa,
0.77n-C' TAL-116`E-eff1331----
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
� �
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
4
Rostov, and Kirovograd on the �blast level, were heard broad-
casting references to the tour. (This applies, of course, only
to locally originated programs; regional radios relay Moscow's
home service for certain time-periods daily, and it must be
assumed that some of these relays included items regarding
Nixon's activities.)
4. Extent of Press Coverage
Coverage of Nixon's trip by PRAVDA and IZVESTIA was fairly
extensive and included verbatim texts of some of Nixon's public
statements. The trip was eleakly not underplayed for readers of,
these two major newspapers, although a sizeable proportion of the
space devoted to it was taken up by rebuttals to Nixon's remarks.
As the following table indicates, total coverage of Nixon's trip
in wordage published by PRAVDA and IZVESTIA was for each paper
about half the New York TIMES coverage of Mikoyan's U.S. visit
but only slightly less than the TIMES' coverage of Kozlov's. The
figures represent numbers of column inches* published during the
course of the visits**:
Wordage
Photos, Cartoons, etc.
PRAVDA (Nixon)
505
34
IZVESTIA (Nixon)
665
22
N.Y. TIMES (Mikoyan)
1,204
386
N.Y. TIMES (Kozlov)
767
253
* PRAVDA carries six columns to the normal page, IZVESTIA seven,
the TIMES eight; the variation is sufficient to explain much of
IZVESTIA's lead over PRAVDA but by no means the TIMES' lead over
the Soviet papers in its coverage of the Mikoyan visit.
** Nixon was in the USSR from 23 July to 2 August; Mikoyan was
in the United States from 4 to 20 January; Kozlov was in the
United States from 28 June to 13 July.
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519_
� �
OFFICIAL WE ONLY
5
Additionally, both Soviet papers on 30 July gave front-page* space
to the full text of Khrushchev's 28 July speech at Dnepropetrovsk,
about one-fifth (25 column inches) of which dealt with Nixon's
tour.
Front-Page Stories: In regard to stories beginning on the front
page, PRAVDA did not compare too unfavorably with the New York
TIMES; IZVESTIA came off less well. PRAVDA published 13 front-
page stories on Nixon's trip, against IZVESTIA's four. The TIMES
published 20 such stories on Mikoyan's visit, 11 on Kozlovis.
Texts of Wor Speeches: PRAVDA and IZVESTIA each provided text
of three of Nixon's major public statements: his arrival speech,
his exhibition speech, his TV speech (IZVESTIA alone) and his
farewell speech (PRAVDA alone). The TIMES provided text of two of
Mikoyan's major pronouncements, three of Kozlov's. The TIMES,
however, published full, near-text accounts of many of the Soviet
visitors' statements that it did not completely text. PRAVDA
and IZVESTIA tended to summarize scantily and nonobjectively those
statements by Nixon that they did not text.
Soviet regional press coverage was meager, in parallel with
regional radio coverage. Of a wide selection of regional daily
papers examined, none published any verbatim texts or even
extensive quotations of ff.xon's public statements in Moscow. All,
however, published daily information on Nixon's principal activities,
in the form of reprints of TASS and, in some cases,AP dispatches,
mostly brief and with little or no comment.
There was a striking contrast between the space given Nixon's trip
in the Soviet regional press and the space devoted to the Mikoyan
and Kozlov visits in the U.S. press outside New York. Soviet regional
papers devoted at most one-tenth the space (in wordage and pictorial
matter) to Nixon's trip that U.S. papers (in cities of comparable
size) gave Mikoyan's. The following table compares the principal
dailies in Leningrad and Tashkent with leading papers in Detroit and
St. Louis. Figures again represent column inches:
Printed material Photos, Cartoons etc.
LENINGRADSKAYA PRAVDA (Nixon)
101
18
PRAVDA VOSTOKA (Nixon)
43
0
Detroit FREE PRESS (Mikoyan)
861
397
Detroit FREE PRESS (Kozlov)
434
342
St. Louis POST-DISPATCH (Mikoyan)
826
336
St. Louis POST-DISPATCH (Kozlov)
372
86
uNLI
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
�
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519_
6
Totals were higher for the Detroit NEWS, lower for the Detroit
TIMES and St. LoUIS. GLOBE-DEMOCRAT, but the general picture re-
mained the same. The other papers in the two Soviet cities,
EVENING LENINGRAD and KIZIL UZBEKISTAN, were not available for
examination, but there is no reason to believe that their coverage
would have been more expansive than that of the principal papers
in Leningrad and Tashkent.
Also subject to comparison is Leningrad's press coverage of Nixon's
stay in that city and Detroit's press coverage of the two Soviet
leaders' visits to Detroit. LENINGRADSKAYA PRAVDA, the principal
Leningrad paper, devoted 49 column inches of printed material .and
].column inches of graphic material to Nixon's visit to Leningrad.
Detroit newspapers' coverage of visits of equivalent length by
Mikoyan and Kozlov was in every case at least four times as
voluminous, even with the graphic material excluded. The Detroit
NEWS devoted as many as 502 column inches of printed material and
523 column inches of graphic material to Mikoyan's Detroit stopover.
5. Mbscow Radio and Press Coverage of Nixon's Public Statements
Details of the publicity given Nixon's statements and speeches
by Mbscow's central information media are provided below. (The
regional press and radio seem to have carried no verbatim texts
or near-texts, except for local publication of Nixon's arrival
and departure remarks in the various cities he visited.)
(a) Speech on arrival in Moscow, 23 July: Broadcast in the home
service in full Russian translation, along with Kozlov's speech,
on the evening of Nixon's arrival; text published in PRAVDA and
IZVESTIA.,
(b) Debate with Khrushchev at exhibition: PRAVDA's account of
Nixon's public discussion with Khrushchev prior to the formal open-
ing of the U.S. exhibition was broadcast textually in the home
service and in excerpted or summarized form to nearly all Moscow's
foreign audiences. PRCVDA's account gave Khrushchev all the best
of the debate: 62 sentences were devoted to Khrushchev's remarks,
11 to Nixon's; the Vice President's debating points were totally
suppressed; and Nixon was reported variously as "in a hurried
�OF -FTUT2M-115t-etfiric--
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
IP
orricIAL USE ONLY
- 7 -
retreat," finding a topic "obviously not to oail taste," and so
forth. No fuller account of the debate has been broadcast by
Radio Moscow, although the video tape was carried by Moscow TV
on 27 and 28 July, and by Kiev and other regional TV stations on
subsequent dates.
(c) Speech at exhibition opening: The home service broadcast
"live" the ceremonies of the exhibition opening, including Nixon's
speech in English, but no Russian translation was provided. On
the morning of 25 July the home service rebroadcast the text of
Khrushchev's speech but not Nixon's. The text of Nixon's speech
was, however, published in PRAVDA and IZVESTIA.
The text or near-text of Khrushchev's speech was broadcast to
Moscow's principal foreign audiences, along with brief summaries.
of Nixon's address; 14 minutes devoted to Khrushchev's speech,
3 minutes to Nixon's, was the norm. The broadcast summaries of
Nixon's speech, as well as the TASS summary presumably published
in the bulk of the Soviet press, omitted the sections praising the
U.S. way of life and implying criticism of certain Soviet policies.
(d) Conversations with workers: Reportage frequently cited "awkward"
queries by workers, especially in regard to Captive Nations Week,
the importance of "confirming peaceful words by deeds," U.S.
military bases, U.S. restrictions on trade, a nuclear test ban, and
the rearming of West Germany. Nixon was usually reported only to
have "listened attentively." Almost none of his rejoinders were
reported in the home service, and only a few were acknowledged in
broadcasts to North America. The home audience was told that he
responded on one occasion, "I:shall answer at the appropriate time
in my speeches," but was not told of his specific references to
his forthcoming TV speech.
(e) TV speech of 1 August: The speech was broadcast to the Soviet
audience only over the hom3 service's "third program," which has a
relatively limited broadcast range and is normally used for music.
The broadcast, simultanecdus with the telecast, provided full
Russian translation. Thorough checking by monitors indicates that
the speech was not relayed or retransmitted by any other domestic
station, Moscow or regional. One FBIS station checked a total
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO21 19519
11,
urriQIAL U
8
of 41 audible regional transmitters during the course of the speech;
none was carrying the speech. The main home service program carried
a brief news account of the speech, but not until noon of 2 August.
The size of the home audience for the speech was further held to a
minimum by the paucity and partially erroneous nature of advance
publicity. The only advance home service announcement, one hour
prior to the speech, said it would be carried by Moscow's TV net-
work and the home service's "second program"; but at the scheduled
time, the second program broadcast only music, without explanation.
At least three of Radio Moscow's shortwave channels--normally used
for foreign-language broadcasts abroad--did carry the speech live
and in full Russian translation. A recording of the speech was
broadcast in English to North America, and other foreign audiences
heard brief one- or two-minute accounts of the speech on the
evening of 1 August. The speech was published in full by IZVESTIA.
PRAVDA carried only a brief summary.
(f) Press conference: Nixon's final press conference, on 2 August,
was reported only in summary form, in a 350-word TASS dispatch that
was published in PRAVDA and further reduced by half in home service
and foreign-language broadcasts. Nixon's remarks on a possible
U.S. invitation to Khrushchev and his praise for the extent of
Soviet coverage of his visit were the only fully publicized sections
of the press conference.
(g) Farewell speech at airport: TASS and the home service carried
the text of Kozlov's speech, but only a brief summary of Nixon's.
Radio Moscow's fullest version of Nixon's speech, in English to
North America, was still not a complete text. PRAVDA but not
IZVESTIA published the text of the speech.
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
8 September 1959
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Comparison of Soviet Coverage of the Vice President's
Visit with US News Coverage of the Mikoyan and
Kozlov Visits
1. As a general conclusion, the Soviet authorities evidently
combined (a) an unusual degree of coverage in the central Moscow
newspapers and radio -- to the minimum extent necessary to avoid
arousing adverse world opinion -- with (b) a usual degree of silence
and suppression in all other internal media, in order to limit the
impact on the Soviet people. The major contrast, should the
President wish to raise the matter with Khrushchev, would be noted
in the attention given nation-wide to the respective visits of leaders.
1
should also be borne in mind that the Soviet press and
radio accompanied the visit of the Vice President and the showing of
our Exhibition in Sokolniki Park with a running drumfire of criticism;
of American life, attempting to discredit the image of America
presented by both.
3. Below is my review of the highlights of the main findings
on coverage of an FBID study prepared following our discussion of
19 August; a copy of the full study is attached. On Saturday I
1r-wfr.F.-17
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
',I %A '1 \ r-=
�
learned that the Vice President coincidentally wished to have such
a comparison as soon as possible, so I have had a copy
2
sent to him.
RAYMOND L. GARTHO'FF
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
�
1./
Comparative Summary of Soviet Coverage of the Vice President's Visit
1. Coverage of the Vice President's trip by Pravda and Izvestia
was fairly extensive, but a sizeable proportion was given to rebuttal
to Nixon's remarks. Total coverage by each was about half that given
to the Mikoyan visit by the New York Times. Pravda and Izvestia
provided the texts of Nixon's arrival and exhibition-opening speeches,
Izvestia alone the television address, and Pravda alone the farewell
speech. All other statements were scantily and nonobjectively
summarized.
2. Regional press coverage of the trip throughout the USSR was
meager. Of a wide selection of newspapers surveyed, none published
any verbatia texts or even extensive quotations from Nixon's public
statements. This was in striking contrast to the attention accorded
to the Mikoyan and Kozlov trips in American newspapers. Soviet
regional papers at most devoted one-tenth as much space to the Nixon
trip. A comparison of coverage in cities visited -- the examplel
selected for close study was Leningrad for the Nixon visit and Detroit
for both Mikoyan and Kozlov -- showed in every case at least four
times, and usually much more, space given by each of the US newspapers.
In the case of large, comparable cities not visited -- Tashkent and
St. Louis -- the difference was substantially greater, with the
St. Louis Dispatch giving over 20 times the space given by Pravda
Vostoka.
,�, � , [
t�d
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
3. Radio Moscow carried the Vice President's arrival, departure,
and exhibition speeches (the last only in English) and summaries of
some other statements. The summaries broadcast, like the TASS
news service accounts, omitted various statements praising the US
way of life and implying criticism of certain Soviet policies. For
example, the "Kitchen Debate" account in Pravda and Radio Moscow
gave 62 sentences to Khrushchev's remarks and 11 to Nixon, suppressing
totally the Vice President's points and derogating his stand.
4. The Vice President's TV address was carried only on the
Moscow "third program," which has a relatively limited broadcast
range and audience (it is normally used only for music). Thorough
checking indicates that the speech was not relayed or retransmitted by
any other Moscow or regional domestic radio or TV station. More-
over, the only advance notice of the speech, carried only one hour
prior to the address, misleadingly said it would be carried on the
"second program" channel, which at the scheduled time broadcast
only music, with no explanation.
5. Soviet regional broadcasts not only failed to carry any major
statements, but only two -- Kiev and Yerevan -- devoted more than
cursory attention to the Vice President's whole trip. Of 43 major
regional radios monitored by one of our stations, only eight were
heard to broadcast any references to the Nixon tour.
- 2 --
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
,*
Approved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519
�
6. Moscow reacted in a predictable way to the Vice President's
Polish trip -- broadcasts to all audiences gave little more than the
barest news on arrival and departure, and no comment on popular
reactions or the importance of the visit.
7. As a postscript, it may be noted that Soviet media have
continued intermittent criticism and attempted rebuttal of some of
the Vice President's arguments since his return.
- 3 -
pproved for Release: 2018/04/03 CO2119519