John F. Kennedy Speech „The President and the Press“
THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS: ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS’ ASSOCIATION, APRIL 27, 1961
Listen to the speech. Audio
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the „lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.“
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight „The President and the Press.“ Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded „The President Versus the Press.“ But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word „secrecy“ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of „clear and present danger,“ the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of „clear and present danger,“ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: „Is it news?“ All I suggest is that you add the question: „Is it in the interest of the national security?“ And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: „An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.“ We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply „give the public what it wants“–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
1 thought on “John F. Kennedy Speech „The President and the Press“”
When he said „secret societies“ he was speaking generally, meaning a society in which the people are not made aware of the actions of their governments.
– Kennedy contrasted an „open“ society such as the United States with it’s free speech and freedom of the press, with a „secret“ society such as those of communist countries (at least from the U.S. perspective.)
So why was he talking about this? For that you should read or listen to the whole speech, including the beginning that such Youtube videos often leave out. JFK titled this speech „The President and the Press,“ which he states in the section usually left out of conspiracy videos, and addressed it to the American Newspapers Publisher’s Association, not the public. The speech can be summarized thusly:
„I know that the president and the press often clash, but this speech is about co-operation between us. We are a society that values freedom of the press and rejects the secrecy that we see in communist governments…. BUT if you guys don’t shut yer’ yaps about certain things that my administration is doing, then you are helping the commies and hurting our country so shut up!“
The speech is the Cold War equivalent of „Loose lips sink ships.“ Throughout the speech, Kennedy repeatedly talks about how the press should weigh reporting with „national security.“ He talks about how secret societies have an advantage over the U.S while our press published information that our enemies would normally need to steal. The „secret societies“ part that conspiracy theorists cite is basically him trying to soften what he’s about to ask. In the rest of that paragraph he emphasizes that he is not in favor of censorship, that he’s not denouncing freedom of the press in the interest of his administration, nor is he advocating that the U.S become a secret society as opposed to an open one. But then the rest of the speech is dedicated to persuading the press to practice self-censorship, or what he calls “discipline” just as they did during open warfare.
As an analogy, think of a coworker coming up to you and saying „So I know that we don’t have assigned parking spots and you’re free to park wherever you want…“ which you can anticipate is followed by a big ol’ But. „…but I usually park there and so it’s kind of my spot.“ Every time that JFK espouses the values of free speech and press is followed by a big ol’ But after which he talks about the need for the press to restrain itself. That’s the core theme of the speech. I wish I had a source with numbered paragraphs I could refer to, but here are a few selections. Let’s start with the paragraph right after the secret societies one, and it begins with-you guessed it- a big ol’ But.
„But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of „clear and present danger,“ the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.“
„[E]very democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.“
„The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.“
„If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of „clear and present danger,“ then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.“
„For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details [here he cites specific examples]… have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power“
Now, for context, this speech was delivered at the height of the Cold War and The Red Scare. The precise date is April 27, 1961, just days after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion that spanned April 17-21 of that month. Aside from indications that there had been leaks regarding the invasion prior to, the Kennedy Administration was no different from a lot of Cold War Administrations in its behind-the-scenes anti-communist machinations. Around this time, his administration was also getting increasingly involved in Vietnam, which started during Eisenhower’s administration, but it wanted public information on the nature and extent of our involvement in Vietnam to be limited. We know this because of the eventual leak and publication of the Pentagon Papers, which became the focus of the case New York Times Co v. United States in 1971.
It should also be contextualized in terms of First Amendment case law. During WWI, 1917 to be exact, the U.S passed the Espionage Act. Part of the Act criminalized obstruction of the draft. In 1919, in Schneck v. United States the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of a Socialist anti-war activist who distributed pamphlets to drafted soldiers that compared the draft to slavery and claimed it to be a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. This case was the origin of the „clear and present danger“ test limiting First Amendment rights that Kennedy referred to in the speech. Specifically, the pamphlets represented a „clear and present danger“ to the government’s efforts to draft and recruit soldiers to fight in the war. Crucially, the court’s decision hinged on the fact that the pamphlets were distributed during a time of war, stating that speech that would be permissible in times of peace can be restricted in times of war.
Throughout the following decades, especially as the Red Scare took hold, limitations on speech and the press through legal and non-legal means became mainstream and the government used this doctrine and all of its expansions and modifications to enact prior restraint (laws, policies, or other gov’t actions to prevent speech or publication)and even criminalize certain types of speech. This was the environment that led to McCarthyism and the House of Un-American Activities.
Although this speech was not an attempt at legally binding prior restraint by Kennedy, it reflects the feelings of his administration, government officials, and a large portion of the populace of at that time: The U.S was in a state of war even without war being declared and this requires voluntary or involuntary restrictions of speech. This speech was a plea for voluntary restraint. But he refers to the legal doctrine allowing involuntary restraint as a point of persuasion. He says that First Amendment Rights can be limited in times of “clear and present danger.” It is worth noting that this statement is actually an inaccurate and overly broad description of the doctrine. He’s citing it as though speech could be limited based on a general atmosphere of “clear and present danger” – which is essentially Red Scare logic- instead of the actual doctrine which was that speech could be limited when the speech itself represents a “clear and present danger” during a time of war (in other words he’s conflating the two prongs of the Schneck doctrine: the danger of the speech and the National context). He then goes on to describe America’s enemies-the communists- as a clear and present danger. Again, he’s using this to persuade. The implication of this is that the existence of the communists and the Cold War justifies limiting speech and that the press should use “discipline” to censor itself in the name of national security because, as Kennedy said in the earlier paragraph, he doesn’t want to censor them, and an open society wouldn’t censor them as a secret society would. However, one might also interpret his citing of First Amendment limitations and then describing present circumstances as meeting that standard as a veiled threat. Essentially saying “I don’t want to censor you, but I will if you don’t censor yourselves.”
Of course, the 1960’s became a turning point in the Cold War with the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and the resulting countercultural movements. Whether in any way related to this or not, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and New York Times Co v. United States (1971) the „clear and present danger“ test was replaced and the government’s ability to limit speech started to be substantially curtailed. In the latter case, which as I mentioned before revolved around the New York Times’ attempt to publish the Pentagon Papers, the SCOTUS established that the government had to meet a higher burden to exercise prior restraint than had previously been recognized.
I’ve had friends try to use this speech as evidence of Kennedy of trying to inform the public about NWO and such and tying it to his assassination. But that interpretation ignores both the majority of the speech’s text and the Cold War context. Far from trying to inform the public of things being hidden from it, he was telling the press to hide things from the public in the name of „national security.