64. Memorandum From the Director of the United States Information Agency (Marks) to the President’s Special Assistant (Califano)1
SUBJECT
- Proposed legislation to permit dissemination of USIA films domestically
The basic authority of USIA (Public Law 402 of 1948) requires the Agency “to disseminate abroad information about the United States, its people and policies.” While there is no specific statutory provision prohibiting the Agency from making its material available to American audiences, Congressional intent is clear in that respect and leaves no room for doubt.
Various educational groups, Congressmen, and other special interests are continually pressuring the Agency for release of materials usually for only limited distribution. Oftentimes these requests may legitimately be granted, eg., where the target audience is a special foreign group within the United States. In any event, refusal of such requests frequently has adverse repercussions almost as serious as those which might result from unauthorized release.
In short, this whole matter of domestic distribution is a very real problem and one which requires constant vigilance in order to keep us out of trouble. The only apparent solution is clarifying legislation.
On September 23, 1965, Congress adopted a joint resolution (S. J. Res. 106) to allow the showing in the United States of the USIA film “John F. Kennedy—Years of Lightning, Day of Drums”2 by transferring six master copies of this film to the trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts upon the payment of $122,000 which would reimburse USIA for expenses in producing the film. The Kennedy Center was given exclusive rights to distribute this film through commercial and educational media for viewing within the United States. This report referred to the previous Congressional statements that USIA-produced films should not “be made available for public showing in this country except pursuant to a specific legislative authorization.”
[Page 183]A. Arguments in support of proposed recommended legislation:
Briefly, experience has demonstrated that some of the films made by USIA have great educational value for U.S. audiences and do not fall into the category of “domestic propaganda.” If these films were made available to domestic groups, the following advantages would result:
1. It would increase the knowledge of the U.S. public about foreign policy. This is important for several reasons. Because of the nature of our society, the people of the U.S. have more direct influence on foreign policy than the people of any other country in the world. Further, we have four million tourists going abroad annually and it would be useful if they were better informed on foreign affairs.
2. Use of selected USIA films in the schools would serve as a valuable educational tool in the field of foreign affairs, which is still not adequately covered, generally speaking, in current curricula.
3. Showing of USIA films would give the U.S. taxpayer some knowledge of what we are doing with his dollar. This may lead to greater interest in USIA as a whole, and with it increased general knowledge and understanding of what we do. If our case is good, it may thus also lead to greater public support for USIA.
4. The distribution of USIA films throughout the U.S. would result in a greater return from the investment made, without any substantial additional expenses. This distribution will require merely additional prints, cost of which would be nominal compared to the initial cost of producing the film.
B. Arguments against recommended legislation:
1. A substantial element in the U.S. press has in the past opposed the showing of USIA films at home. For example, Russ Wiggins3 of the Washington Post has consistently opposed this distribution on emotional rather than philosophic arguments. However, it is possible that prior consultation may reduce or eliminate this opposition.
2. USIA would expose itself to another hundred million critics. Perhaps more importantly, our producers—and particularly our contractors—may have their judgment influenced by the knowledge that they are producing for a domestic audience instead of an exclusive foreign audience.
3. USIA films publicly shown could and probably would become the subject of partisan political arguments. Particularly those looking [Page 184] for issues will find support or opposition for one party or another (or a particular foreign position) in our films, or at least be able to allege it.
4. A program to show films domestically would create a complexity of problems, distribution, financing, pricing for and selection of commercial distributors and TV stations and networks, etc., which would require many man hours of work and repeated sensitive policy decisions.
5. Critics of the Administration could use any move to show our films domestically as one more basis for the charge of “news management.” As you know, there is already a widespread suspicion that this Administration is bending USIA to partisan purposes in its overseas output.
CONCLUSIONS:
After considerable reflection, I would recommend the following:
1. It would not be desirable to have all films or other media products of the USIA distributed domestically.
2. Some films contain information and additional material which could be shown to the American public. Specifically, products such as the Kennedy film, documentaries on the visit of foreign dignitaries and feature films such as “Night of the Dragon”4 on the issue of Vietnam could provide material of substance and value, without provoking controversy.
In the past, Congress has recognized that certain films should be shown to the American public and has authorized specific legislation for this purpose. However, it is obviously cumbersome to require a joint resolution of the House and Senate each time that a film is produced of this nature.
Therefore, I would recommend the creation of a joint committee of the House and Senate which would review USIA films and determine which should be made available for domestic distribution, and through what channels the films would be distributed and exhibited. This committee should be bi-partisan with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. To remove any question of political partisanship, I would suggest the resolution provide that no film should be released unless two-thirds of the committee approve.
- Source: National Archives, RG 306, DIRCTR Subj Files, 1963–69, Bx 6–29 63–69: Acc: #72A5121, Entry UD WW 257, Box 24, Congressional Relations—General Counsel 1965. No classification marking.↩
- Produced by USIA and released in 1964. See footnote 4, Document 30.↩
- Editor and executive vice president of the Washington Post until 1968, when he became U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.↩
- Produced by USIA and released in 1966.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩