62. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs (Rowan) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Johnson)1
SUBJECT
- U.S. Handling of American Newsmen in South Viet-Nam
Problem
We seem headed for a major domestic furor over the “undeclared war” in South Viet-Nam and of US imposed “secrecy regulations” that prevent American newsmen from telling our people the truth about US involvement in that war.
[Page 130]Discussion
Our Embassy in Saigon has called to our attention the fact that it is having considerable difficulty with American newsmen who deplore what these newsmen believe are regulations that make it impossible for them to do their jobs. These newsmen specifically want the right to function much like war correspondents and accompany US personnel on various operations against the Viet-Cong Communist guerrillas.
In the hope of easing relations with the press, our Embassy and military commanders in Saigon have requested the right to make on-the-spot, case-by-case judgments as to when newsmen might be permitted to observe military operations.
Our present policy is that a flat rule prevails against newsmen going on helicopter and other military missions, or being permitted into areas where they might report in detail on what US military men are doing.
It has been explained that this rule has been applied in the interest of national security—that we do not want to telegraph our punches for the enemy, and that we do not want news reports to build up a detailed record that might be cited as evidence of our violation of the Geneva accords.
While in complete agreement with this objective, I do believe that our policy is too broadly restrictive, and that it was adopted without consideration of some press factors that must be considered. The current article in the US News and World Report (Tab A),2 the James Reston column (Tab B) and editorial in yesterdayʼs New York Times (Tab C), the charges in the publication of the Republican National Committee (Tab D—article by Jack Raymond, also from yesterdayʼs New York Times), and as yet unpublished reports submitted to Time-Life (I shall have them at the meeting this evening3) are all indications that we run the risk of serious domestic political consequences if we fail to give proper attention to our information policies with regard to South Viet-Nam.
I am setting forth my views on four points that I think we ought to bear in mind in reviewing the appropriateness of our present embargo on newsmen in Saigon:
- 1.
-
This policy almost certainly will not continue for long to deprive the newsmen of the information we want most to keep out of public print.
Covering the Viet-Nam situation are people like Homer Bigart, Keyes Beach, Howard Sochurek, etc. These fellows have spent a good part of their lives covering wars of one kind or another; they have substantial reputations to protect and, if possible, enhance; they aren’t going to sit on their hands just because of our embargo. They will [Page 131] pump our returning soldiers, use Viet-Namese sources, and generally get the information they want. Less enterprising reporters there will seize upon rumors and resort to so-called interpretive pieces that the boys in the trade call “thumb suckers”—a kind of story that often can cause more woe than the facts. Their colleagues in Washington will pounce on letters written to Congressmen by relatives of GIʼs injured or killed in Viet-Nam.
Furthermore, a look at the material Sochurek has submitted to Life is proof enough that the press boys already have enough detailed information about troops and material to paint a disturbing picture of US involvement.
- 2.
-
By imposing unrealistic regulations we will create a completely hostile press and insure that the newsmen will write just the things we hope to prevent.
Even our friends will do pieces that will grieve us. The Reston column and the Times editorial are examples of this.
In a situation like this a government has two possible fundamental approaches:
- to impose a system of rigid wartime censorship, or
- to cooperate with the press enough to maintain rapport and a mood of mutual trust so as to use the leverage of personal contact to influence, if not control, what information the newsmen put out.
- 3.
-
We presently are inviting a barrage of attacks on President Diem and on our policies and past actions in South Viet-Nam.
Newsmen who feel unjustly deprived of the right to cover military operations will do more interpretives such as the Keyes Beech piece in yesterdayʼs Washington Post. Sochurekʼs file to Life is loaded with rugged criticism of Diem, of Nolting and our Embassy people and of our military personnel.
- 4.
- We must not expect the impossible from the press. There is bound to be major emphasis on the activities of US personnel. This is the nature of news. People in Austin, Texas, care a lot more about what US GIʼs are doing in Viet-Nam than about the dirty work of the Viet Cong. Only through good relations with American newsmen can we “infiltrate” their dispatches with some of the information that we want to get to the public.
Nor can we ever muffle all criticism of Diem. Doubts as to our ability to win with him are too widespread among newsmen who have spent months on the scene. With good relations, we can get a wide measure of silence by astutely invoking the national interest—but not otherwise.
[Page 132]Recommendations
- 1.
- That we adopt a more flexible policy with regard to the handling of newsmen in Saigon.
- 2.
- That the Ambassador be given authority to determine what military operations, if any, newsmen might witness.
- 3.
- That we provide the Ambassador with guidance as to the things we hope the press will avoid, and suggest that he brief them confidentially as to our problems and our need for their understanding and cooperation.