News or Propaganda?

The great U.S. decision of World War II--to live alone no longer--last week touched off a hot argument between the State Department and the Associated Press. Out of that argument came pointed questions, not all of them easily answered:

If the Government has a duty to get its viewpoint before the world, is it enough merely to send abroad the texts of state papers, speeches by and against the Administration? Particularly in the world's twilight areas (i.e., the Balkans), where private news agencies would lose money operating--should the State Department send full news broadcasts of its own?

No More Giveaway. During the war, the A. P. gave its news to the OWI and psychological-warfare agencies. The State Department's interim information service, heir to OWI, still beams 66 program hours of news a day, in 21 languages. Last week the A.P. shut off the State Department's principal free supply of news. U.P. announced that it would follow suit. If their real reason had been that they did not want to give their news to the Government for nothing, that would have been understandable. But apparently they had also refused to sell it. The real reason seemed to be obscurely mystical.

Said the A.P.'s board: ". . . Government cannot engage in newscasting without creating the fear of propaganda, which necessarily would reflect upon the objectivity of the news services. . . ."

Three days later William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State, told A.P. that it was hollering before it was hurt. Said he: "The A.P. is taking . . . responsibility for judging and hamstringing the Government's shortwave broadcasting. . . ."

How About Tass? Shrewdly, Benton reminded A.P. that Britain, Russia and other nations get and pass on U.S. news from the A.P.'s report. If the use of A.P. news by BBC and Tass does not hurt the A.P. reputation for objectivity, how could U.S. broadcasts reflect on A.P.?

At week's end A.P. seemed to be losing some ground. Said one influential member, Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution: "The attitude of the A.P. might make a silent giant of this country when every other giant and pigmy in the world is broadcasting its own interpretation of American news events and policies." More than one editor complained of being fed up with the pontifical attitudes of A.P.'s Kent Cooper and U.P.'s Hugh Baillie. Even the trade magazine Editor & Publisher, which usually goes along with anything the powerful A.P. or U.P. does, urged them to think it over again.

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