The Devil's Due

The visitor from Russia was uninvited, unwanted and unwelcome. But for all that, Nikita Khrushchev's presence at the United Nations General Assembly was by any standard Page One news. And with considerable soul-searching, some irresolution and plenty of open hostility, the U.S. press set itself to the responsibilities of giving the devil his due.

To many newspapers and columnists, the devil's due was the back of their hand. You are a godless man, an atheist," wrote Pierre J. Huss of the Hearst Headline Service. "In coming here as a U.N. delegate, your intentions are all bad. You can leave any time, and good riddance." Hearst's New York Journal-American besought all New York to join in 60 seconds of silence "as a mute memorial to victims of Red tyranny," and later headlined a story of a few anti-Communist demonstrations in New York: HATE ROARS OVER CITY LIKE A PENT-UP FLOOD. But it was left to a paper in suburban New Rochelle, N.Y. to set a dubious sort of journalistic record:

Newspapers, television and radio stations were flooded with mail and phone calls urging them to ignore Khrushchev entirely. A woman in Texas suggested to the Associated Press that Khrushchev be treated as "the invisible and inaudible man"; a woman from Tiffin, Ohio, asked United Press International to "make all quotations [from Khrushchev] in fine print."

"Objectively & Fully." A few gave in. Radio station WBAZ in Kingston, N.Y. declared a blackout on Khrushchev, and found itself not covering the news. The Stockton, Calif. Record reduced Khrushchev's Harlem meeting with Castro to a single sentence.

"The 'silent treatment' for Mr. K. is as ridiculous as it sounds," said the Cleveland Press's Louis B. Seltzer, one of several editors polled by Editor & Publisher. Said Milburn P. Akers, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times: "Nothing can be gained in acting after the manner of an ostrich. We should not let Khrushchev score a propaganda victory. Still, the news, if any, should be reported objectively and fully."

When the U.S. State Department asked television networks to show restraint--i.e., schedule no special Khrushchev appearances--the suggestion was resented as unnecessary. The Mutual radio network, which claimed to have received no such Government advisory, went ahead with its invitations to ten U.N. visitors, among them Khrushchev, to be interviewed. One TV network official recalled bitterly that only a year ago the State Department had pleaded for kind treatment to the Soviet Premier, on the ground that it would be reciprocated when Eisenhower visited Russia (Khrushchev, after the U-2 incident, reneged on his part of the deal). The Overseas Press Club, by inviting Khrushchev to a question-and-answer session with its members, stirred up such a public controversy that four members resigned, though its intention was only to subject Khrushchev to normal press conference processes, instead of letting him dominate the questioners from a balcony.

"Undeniably News." A lot of the agonizing was based on the unwarranted assumption that Khrushchev would have so devastating a message that the U.S., from fear of it, should suspend the kind of open and hard-hitting reporting that serves it so well. Certainly no editor wanted to be merely a propaganda outlet for Khrushchev. James Reston, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, felt that the answer was for the press to cover the story, but not to let Khrushchev exploit its enterprise, or offer him special forums. Wrote Reston: "The press and wireless agencies cannot in a free society play heroes and villains with the news. The press, radio and television companies are obliged to cover the news--and whatever Khrushchev does is undeniably news--but they are not obliged to create news."

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