Critique from London

Has the U.S. press been persecuting Richard Nixon in the Watergate case?

A few American commentators say yes (TIME, May 28), but none has had the impact of a foreign critic, the Times of London, which recently argued in a long editorial that Nixon was the victim of "a Washington variant of lynch law."

Because of the paper's prestige and its objectivity in an American dispute, the Times's thoughtful critique has provoked debate over whether the press has become reckless in its pursuit of Watergate villains.

The leader, written by Times Editor William Rees-Mogg, gave full credit to the journalists who originally made crucial disclosures. But now, Rees-Mogg contended, the televised Senate hearings, the leak-prone grand jury investigation and the publication of assorted prejudicial statements have pulverized due process. He said, in effect, that Nixon is being convicted in a kangaroo court of public opinion.

Dubious Sources. A number of American publications have been giving the issue some thought and space.

At least five papers--the Washington Post and Star-News, Providence Journal, Boston Globe, and Detroit News --have reprinted the Times editorial in full. Others have mentioned it. Dean Mills of the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau wrote a lengthy piece about the difficulties of conducting a successful prosecution in an atmosphere of supercharged publicity. In it he quoted Paul C. Reardon, an expert on pretrial publicity, who condemned the circulation of "hearsay on hearsay, statements in which people are being damned two or three removes away."

The Post, which Rees-Mogg had singled out for special blame, along with the New York Times, replied that U.S.

press influence "is as nothing compared with the weight of an American President, capable of commanding all three television networks simultaneously in his own defense." The Post also argued that in a similar scandal a British government would fall. "We are not Britain," the Post said. "We have a different set of checks and balances, which grant a President a fixed, firm term of office while holding him answerable, every day, to the judgment of the people."

The Globe was more pointed: "The American press, unlike the British ...

does not presume to anoint itself as a censor behind which the American Government may do what it pleases without disclosure and public discussion." New York Times Columnist Tom Wicker pointed out that the original Justice Department inquiry was hardly vigorous. Therefore, both Justice and the Senate "need to know that an independent press is holding their feet to the fire." The Milwaukee Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch all argued along a similar vein: that bringing out the full truth must take priority over assuring successful criminal prosecutions.

Rees-Mogg, who arrived in Washington last week for a visit, said in an interview with TIME that he was "pleased" that his editorial had won attention. He acknowledged that he wrote the piece without consulting his Washington bureau, but he did confer with Louis Heren, the Times deputy editor who had spent ten years in the U.S., and returned recently to take a look at Watergate. Rees-Mogg, 44, considers himself a student of U.S. politics. His American mother was a Democrat--a Broadway actress as well--and he has often visited the U.S. In any event, he said, "the principles of justice are universal."

He agreed that the British and American systems dictate different roles for the press: "We don't have the First Amendment. My answer to the Post would be that the American press, because of their privileged position, have a particular duty to be fair to people with whom they disagree." Rather than trying to view the case with "reasonable impartiality," he said, publications like the Post and the New York Times "are conducting the case for the prosecution." Later, in an appearance before the National Press Club, Rees-Mogg handled interrogation with aplomb.

American newsmen, he argued, have been "predominantly hostile" to Nixon throughout his career. If the President falls from power because of "impeachment by the press," he said, "the press must be seen to have been abundantly fair. That duty has not, in my judgment, been discharged." He predicted that the result would be great popular resentment against journalists.

Rees-Mogg got a gracious reception from his audience, though many doubted that he understood the differences between press-government relations in the U.S. and Britain. Another crucial point that he seems to overlook is that Watergate is far more than a criminal proceeding involving some burglars and their employers. It is a test of the American system's ability to right itself from an extraordinary blow. Though the press is fallible and hardly free from excess, it is making the only contribution it can: the fullest possible disclosure of shocking facts that were secret too long.

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