"Villain" Vindicated

The sordid complex of crime, tragedy, deception and irony known as the Watergate case could be subtitled "Nixon v. the Press." Last week the White House conceded defeat poignantly, if rather belatedly. First the President, in his televised address, credited "a vigorous free press" for helping to reveal the truth. After the speech, he told reporters to "continue to give me hell whenever you think I'm wrong." Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler the next day publicly apologized to the Washington Post for his past denunciations of the paper's Watergate coverage. Spiro Agnew followed with his own peace offering by lamenting the "unfortunate hostility" that has existed between officials and journalists. Both sides, he said, should "put aside visceral reaction and engage in a productive and intelligent discussion of their differences."

The Administration was not merely backing down because muckrakers had been proved generally correct in one particular case. In a larger sense, the White House was edging away, at least for now, from its longstanding policy of berating and challenging a number of major news organizations.

Until Watergate, much of the public seemed willing to go along with the Administration in regarding the press as a villain. There appeared to be little popular indignation over the rhetorical or legal thrusts at press freedom. Local prosecutors and judges, taking a cue from Washington, began pressuring reporters to reveal confidential material. Consciously or unconsciously, some journalists--particularly on television--tended to be more cautious.

Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin Bradlee, recalling the mood while his paper was being denounced, says: "Talk about minefields! One major slip in this story would have destroyed us. We were playing with the entire well-being of the Post company." While that statement contains a touch of hyperbole, it does reflect the sense of vulnerability many newsmen felt while the "major media" were under attack. Such apprehension has been replaced by a feeling of vindication; the traditional stance of the press in American society--rambunctious, independent, skeptical--has been proved valid again. There were two other, more specific lessons:

> It was the large news organizations, precisely the ones assailed by Spiro Agnew and others, that mustered the resources and courage to dig out the facts and present them to a national audience. Smaller newspapers and local TV stations, often patted on the head by the Administration for their "straight" reporting, simply lacked the means for the job.

> Most of the disclosures made by the press were possible only because investigative reporters were determined to protect their informants' identity. This venerable technique has been severely challenged by the Administration and the Supreme Court. In early 1970 the Justice Department began to issue subpoenas in large numbers for material that the press has always considered privileged. Last June the Supreme Court ruled in the Government's favor, saying that the First Amendment does not offer automatic protection against such subpoenas. The issue remains cloudy. The courts can quash individual subpoenas, and Congress is considering giving newsmen a statutory shield. Meanwhile, newsmen who print material that arouses a grand jury's curiosity may still face a choice between divulging their sources or going to jail. But if ever there was proof of the need for the press to be able to keep its sources confidential, Watergate is it.

What happens next between the White House and the press? Despite the Administration's seemingly conciliatory attitude, no love feast is in prospect. A long history of bitterness and distrust cannot be swept away quickly. Yet if the Administration can outgrow the anger reflex set off by even routine criticism and allow newsmen more access at the White House, a degree of mutual respect can develop.

As for the press, winning the Watergate war does not mean automatic vindication for all time on all issues. Obviously newsmen must be as careful and as responsible as ever; mistakes or exaggerations will quickly revive the old attacks on the media. For the time being, though, journalists can rightly claim a major victory for their profession.

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