Truth Hurts

One of the lasting legacies of Viet Nam and Watergate has been a deepening skepticism among journalists about the words and deeds of public officials. Former Senator J. William Fulbright, an early critic, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of U.S. policy in Indochina had much to do with fostering that skepticism. Now it seems he is beginning to regret it. The press, Fulbright laments in the current Columbia Journalism Review, has become "excessively mistrustful and even hostile" toward Government. He adds: "If once the press was excessively orthodox and unquestioning of Government policy, it has now become almost sweepingly iconoclastic."

Fulbright, who left the Senate last year and joined a Washington law firm, blames the "new inquisitorial style" of journalism for spreading "cynicism and disillusion." Says he: "Everything revealed about the CIA or dubious campaign practices may be wholly or largely true, but I have come to feel of late that these are not the kind of truths we most need now; these are truths which must injure if not kill the nation." He deplores "the new investigative journalism" for its preoccupation "with the tracking down and punishment of wrongdoers, with giving them their just deserts." He adds: "My own view is that no one should get everything he deserves --the world would become a charnel house."

Absurd Fears. Fulbright is not alone in these concerns. Last fall, less than two years after her own Washington Post was uncovering the Watergate scandals, Publisher Katharine Graham warned reporters against a temptation to "see conspiracy and cover-up where they do not exist." Before a group of editors last month, A.P. General Manager Wes Gallagher denounced "this investigative binge." CBS Commentator Eric Sevareid feels that there is "a kind of McCarthyism" abroad: "Anybody who is hauled up and accused of anything is assumed guilty until proved innocent. This is a residue of Watergate."

Plenty of journalists disagree. New York Times Managing Editor A.M. Rosenthal scoffs at Fulbright's fears: "The idea that a big strong press is constantly stripping the poor defenseless Government is absurd. There is a vast army of public relations men representing the Government and business views. That 'official' version dominates the press, so the investigative process becomes more and more important." Says Columnist Jack Anderson: "The founding fathers intended us to be watchdogs, not lapdogs."

Veteran Press Critic Ben Bagdikian points out that "there have been more societies destroyed by the undisclosed corruption or incompetence of leaders than by any demoralization that comes from disclosure." Says a relaxed George Reedy, dean of Marquette University's journalism school: "For a while every reporter was out to be Woodward and Bernstein. Ten years ago, it was Tom Wolfe and participatory journalism. Fifteen or 20 years ago, it was James Reston. The fads come and go."

Emotional Mistrust. One too familiar flaw in Fulbright's argument lies in his repeated indictment of "the media" --a careless lumping together of what is in fact a remarkably diverse and independent collection of publishers and broadcasters. Yet Fulbright may have a point when he is worried about the spread of an automatic, "emotional mistrust to Government in general." He calls for "a measure of voluntary restraint, an implicit agreement among the major groups and interests in our society that none will apply their powers to the fullest." Not a bad precept--and not an easy one to apply in a system that depends on adversary relationships, among press, politicians and courts, as well as relationships of trust.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.