That Liberal Cabal

Cambodia and related events are on everyone's mind tonight--including those men who are hidden away somewhere in an elusive secret-command headquarters that, search though we may, we haven't been able to find. Yes, somewhere in the jungle labyrinth of Manhattan Island there is a secret nerve center where, every Sunday afternoon, an enormously powerful group of men gather to decide what the "Eastern Establishment Media" line for the coming week will be. A week or so ago, it was "Desperate Gamble," then last week it was "Crisis of Leadership." [This is] "Isolation of the President" week. --Presidential Assistant BobHaldeman

To those gathered at U.C.L.A. to witness Haldeman's acceptance of the Alumnus of the Year award, the speaker's tongue-in-cheek hypothesis was good for a chuckle or two. But coming from a member of an Administration more noted for hostility to the press than for intentional humor, the Eastern Establishment Media-cabal theory was certain to be taken seriously by many Americans. It took the White House to set matters straight, in a statement that described Haldeman's fantasy as "jesting."

A Certain Kind. Jesting or not, the only thing new in the notion is the hyperbole. Theodore White, the chronicler of presidential campaigns, has bemoaned what he calls "the Opinionated Mafia," located within "a one-mile radius of [Manhattan's] Fifth Avenue and 51st Street, who control 95% of opinion and influence making in the U.S.A. These people drink together, talk together, read the same esoteric and mad reviews." The Wall Street Journal picked up the theme last October, editorializing that "the Establishment-liberal media have been terribly faddish in their attitude toward Nixon." And of course the most vociferous proponent of the idea has been Vice President Agnew, who scarcely passes up a speech-making opportunity to lambaste the "Washington-New York axis" or "the liberal news media."

Is there an Eastern Liberal Media Establishment? Certainly, to the extent that many influential news organizations have headquarters in Washington or New York and that the people who work for them are exposed to similar ideas. "Our profession," says Atlantic Magazine Editor Bob Manning, "does attract a certain kind of guy. He's curious. He's got a considerable amount of skepticism. He's apt to question the motives or statements of everybody in power." It is probably also true that most journalists tend to be liberal. More specifically, it is a condition of their profession, as of most others, that journalists are friendly with their fellows--and are apt to compare notes on stories. But the suggestion of collusion ignores the nature of a highly competitive profession. James Reston, dean of Washington columnists, bristles at the thought. "I don't meet with anybody," he says. "I don't even work for the New York Times; I work for the readers of the New York Times. It's sad that Nixon sees all this in personal and conspiratorial terms." Quite simply, Reston believes that he has a vital obligation to "observe with relentless attention the power and even the personality and character of the President. The greater the power of the Presidency, the greater the skepticism of the press should be in watching that power and leaning against it."

Why the Administration takes the defensive is easily understood. Particularly on the war, it has indeed been under heavy attack from publications often following a remarkably similar liberal line. But on many specifics of Viet Nam, not to mention domestic social issues, media that are often casually lumped together do take widely varying approaches. What the Administration's condemnation of the Northeastern press seems to imply is that the rest of the nation's press remains hearty in its approbation. In fact, approval and criticism know no geographical boundaries. The New York Daily News, for example, remains one of Mr. Nixon's greatest fans, while the Atlanta Constitution, the Milwaukee Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle oppose Administration policies.

Another implication of the attacks is that the critics are somehow responsible for the nation's ills, and that things would get better if they would just pipe down. As the Washington Post editorialized last week: "The apparent presidential-vice-presidential view [is] that the economy can be saved or the casualty rate in Indochina lowered or civil peace restored if only Harriet Van Home will shape up."

Others chuckled at Haldeman and responded in kind--with humor. Ted Lewis, Washington columnist of the dis-Establishmentarian New York Daily News, wrote a parody of the Haldeman speech. Wrote Lewis: "It is hard to believe, but once a week, as we get it, a gaggle of presidential aides meets secretly on how best to sell whatever Nixon policy is in trouble at the time. This group may be called the Secret Six. [The] closed-door conferees on image problems don't end their huddle until there is agreement on what is known as 'the password of the week.' The password seldom leaks out, but enough evidence has accumulated in the present week to indicate it is 'smile, smile, smile.' "

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.