76-03-A4
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1976
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Reporters, Sources and Laws
TranscriptDo some reporters answer to a higher calling than us ordinary mortals and should they take the l aw into their own hands? I'll be right back. Twice in recent months, issues involving news reporters and the law have themselves made headlines. The cases had something in common and they tend to show that the media may have a blind spot when it comes to reporting the doings of their colleagues. The most celebrated of the cases involved Danil Schorr, the CBS Washington correspondent who received a copy of Congress' CIA investigation report which Congress -- at the President's request -- had voted to withhold from publication till certain national security secrets could be removed or protected. Schorr, whose later public statements involved a great deal of high-toned rhetoric, decided that he must obey at once a higher authority than either Congress or the President. Using as a front a so-called "reporters' committee", Schorr passed the pilfered report to New York's Village Voice which used it and then basked in the subsequent furor. Schorr was placed on leave by CBS. (He later left their employ, but is plenty busy these days on the lecture circuit.) The House Ethics committee investigated the matter and recently concluded that it would not punish Schorr, though it apparently did consider several possible actions. What is most significant about all the coverage by the news media of the Schorr affair is that the central figure in the matter was so successful in diverting attention away from the question of whether or not he should have published a pilfered document which legally constituted authorities were holding for legitimate purposes -- and diverting it to the question of who had leaked the document to him and whether he should reveal that source. This shift very deftly caused the news media to leap to Schorr's defense, for no self-respecting journalist would favor forcing a colleague to divulge a source. There was scarcely no discussion publicly of the other question. In Fresno, California, something similar happened. Four reporters were sent to jail. They had received a leaked grand jury report and published it in their newspaper. The news media raised a rumpus. Editorial writers thundered about the right and responsibility of reporters to protect their sources. Indeed, if this were the only issue, they would have been right, for protection of sources is essential to maintaining a free press. But I followed that case closely in the media and I cannot recall hearing or reading a single word about the propriety of those reporters publishing a grand jury report that, under law, was secret. The reason for keeping such reports secret prior to any indictments is to protect the rights of the citizens involved. Reporters should protect their sources alright, but should they play God? This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details
| |||||||||||
Added Notes
|
