Stanton's No

Passing almost unnoticed last week amid the fuss over the Purloined Papers was another journalistic controversy. The questions: Does First Amendment protection extend to television and allow it to freely edit news? Does the Government have the right to judge whether TV's editing is deceptive? The answer may come soon, and with it perhaps a contempt-of-Congress citation for the president of CBS.

The argument resulted from CBS's now famous documentary The Selling of the Pentagon (TIME, April 5, 12), which showed how the Defense Department spends millions to promote its public image. After the Nixon Administration complained that the program distorted the facts, the House Commerce Committee chaired by Congressman Harley O. Staggers subpoenaed CBS President Frank Stanton, demanding to see "all film, work prints, outtakes, sound-tape recordings, written scripts and/or transcripts." Once before, CBS had turned over material on an abortive program, Project Nassau, involving a projected invasion of Haiti. Now Stanton offered only the film used and a transcript of the show. He refused to give over other material, claiming that would compromise freedom of the press. Had the show involved confidential sources, Stanton would have been on firmer ground. As it was, he could only argue: "If newsmen are told that their notes, films and tapes will be subject to compulsory process so that the Government can determine whether the news has been satisfactorily edited, the scope, nature and vigor of their news-gathering and reporting activities will inevitably be curtailed."

The committee avoided any criticism of the overall thrust of the program. Instead, it zeroed in on the transposition of quotations and out-of-context quotes from a Pentagon official, and a colonel who is now suing CBS for $6 million.

"We have nothing to do with the First Amendment," argued Subcommittee Member William L. Springer. "What we're talking about is deceit bordering on fraud."

That CBS moved some quotes cannot be disputed, but Stanton argued that this is a common journalistic tool employed to gain clarity and conciseness. Critics have a better argument about the quotation that was taken out of context. Here, Assistant Secretary of Defense Daniel Z. Henkin was shown replying to one CBS question with a statement that was partly from an answer to an earlier inquiry. There is disagreement about whether this constitutes deceit or sloppy editing.

More perplexing is the matter of television's role as a journalistic enterprise, which is licensed by the Government and thus subject to federal scrutiny. Stanton conceded that broadcasters are answerable to the public--but, in a difficult argument, at the same time rejected the Government's right to examine and judge CBS's practices.

Staggers: Have you brought the materials?

Stanton: No, I have not.

Staggers: I order you to produce the materials.

Stanton: I respectfully decline.

Staggers: In my opinion, you are now in contempt.

Soon the committee will argue contempt charges; if the whole House should vote to hold him in contempt of Congress, he could be fined, or go to jail.

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