The Press: Let Freedom Ring True

How free is the "freest press in the world?" Who can get a hearing in it, and who cannot? Is its freedom really in danger? Is it giving the country the kind of service that the times require?

This week, 13 men* who had spent three years and $215,000 in quest of the answers brought in their report. A Free and Responsible Press (University of Chicago Press; $2) was the work, not of newspapermen, but of educators, philosophers, lawyers, a poet, a banker. They, and a handful of assistants, had met 17 times, heard 283 witnesses, reflected and argued as the Commission on Freedom of the Press. They were financed by grants from Time Inc. ($200,000) and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. ($15,000). But their conclusions were strictly their own.

Dangerous Age. They decided—and the decision troubled them—that press freedom (meaning radio and movies as well as newspapers and magazines) is indeed in danger. It always had been, might always be: but the present danger seemed to lie within the press, not outside. They were amazed by the bigness and badness they had seen. Said the report:

"These agencies can facilitate thought and discussion. They can stifle it. ... They can debase and vulgarize mankind. They can endanger the peace of the world; they can do so accidentally, in a fit of absence of mind. They can play up or down the news and its significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind spots, misuse the great words, and uphold empty slogans. [They] . . . can spread lies faster and farther than our forefathers dreamed. . . ." They can, said the Commission, and they do.

In the old days, the Commission reflected, "the only serious obstacle to free expression was government censorship. . . . Protection against government is now not enough to guarantee that a man who has something to say shall have a chance to say it. ... Through concentration of ownership the variety of sources of news and opinions is limited. . . . Freedom of the press . . . can only continue as an accountable freedom."

Big Order. How did the accounts balance? The U.S. now required five things of its press: "1) a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning; 2) a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism; 3) a means of projecting the opinions and attitude of the groups in the society to one another; 4) a method of presenting and clarifying the goals and values of the society; 5) a way of reaching every [citizen] by the currents of information, thought and feeling which the press supplies."

And just what was the U.S. getting? Fine service, said the Commission—from a few leaders in each field. But from the rank & file, deplorable performance. The movies were out to entertain, and nothing else; the radio was out to sell soup, soap & cereals, period; the press was out for scoops and sensations.