835.911/10–2247: Airgram
The Ambassador in Argentina (Bruce) to the Secretary of State
A–635. With reference to the Department’s telegram no. 985 of October 17, 1 p.m.,50 quoting messages sent by Mr. Hull51 and Mr. Armour to La Prensa on the occasion of its 75th anniversary, the first sentence of this Embassy’s telegram no. 1234 of October 10, 6 p.m. reads as follows: “Embassy records indicate no messages from U.S. officials sent La Prensa since 75th anniversary.” Embassy files contain record of message sent on the occasion of the 75th anniversary but there are no records of messages since that time. It seems to us that the 75th anniversary or any other anniversary the number of which would be a multiple of 25 is generally considered more significant than for instance the 78th anniversary.
We have just learned in confidence that letters from the British, Swedish, Belgian, Brazilian and Peruvian Foreign Offices addressed to the local representative of United Press stating that they were unable to comply with the United Press’s request for letters of congratulations to the publisher of La Prensa were opened and photostatic copies made by the Argentine authorities. The local correspondent of UP was called in by the Argentine authorities and asked to explain. The letters were apparently received sealed but the authorities showed the UP correspondent photostatic copies of the letters.
This is most unfortunate development. It is known, of course, by the interested Argentine officials that UP received a large monthly fee from La Prensa for its services and it would be impossible to convince President Perón and other Argentine officials that UP was not interfering in the internal affairs of Argentina and probably more interested in protecting its52 La Prensa than in actual freedom of the press.
. . . . . . .
It is unfortunate that UP should become involved in this especially as it can no longer be argued that UP was not soliciting congratulatory [Page 325] messages for La Prensa and no one could convince Perón and his friends that UP is not primarily motivated by a desire to protect its interests and that it is interfering in the internal affairs of Argentina. This development will probably have an unfavorable effect on all American correspondents in Argentina. There seems to be little if any remedy at present other than to hope that it will eventually blow over. I sent a short message to Gainza Paz congratulating La Prensa on its 78th anniversary. A similar message was sent by the British Ambassador. Associated Press sent no message. This development makes more difficult our argument that news services are completely objective. According to information received by this Embassy UP gets a monthly fee from La Prensa of $10,000, plus certain others for unusual expenses. We have been told by a reliable newspaper man that this is the largest fee paid to any news services by any newspaper. We feel that subsequent developments have justified the position we orginally took with regard to messages from Secretary Marshall and other high officials of the United States Government. We consider that messages by Mr. Armour and me are normal and natural enough not to arouse special comment especially as British Ambassador also sent a message. However, position of UP is weakened by fact that it obviously solicited message for La Prensa. This information was given to Bay and me in strictest confidence with request that it be discussed with no one.