Dear
Charlie: As you know, I have been giving a great deal of thought recently--as I am sure we all have--to the matter of the public relations efforts of the various Departments. I particularly wrestled with the problem after our discussion at the Cabinet meeting on Friday, and the following suggestions came to my mind.1 I send them to you as a sort of "working paper" from which we may be able to go on with our conversation on the subject.
It seems to me that the embarrassing Defense disclosures that have appeared in magazine articles prepared by cooperation between the writer and Pentagon officials, have invariably been traceable to a quite natural and logical desire on the part of the various Pentagon officials to get an interesting plug for their respective branches of the service, of the writer to produce as interesting or exciting a story as possible, and for the publication to make the fullest possible disclosures. While I can understand these motivations, I wonder nevertheless if we cannot make our Services see that the public relations of the Defense Department must operate as a team. To insure this, there would have to be a ruling from you that no information, releases, and stories of visitations, regarding new weapons, new or sensitive installations, etc., should be issued or granted without central Defense Department clearance.
It further seems that before any story is even tentatively agreed upon, both the reporter and the publication he is writing for must agree to certain basic "ground rules" covering the scope of the article and the rights of the Defense Department to correct and to blue-pencil. (I think we agree that some kind of "censorship" for security purposes--even though it is a much misunderstood word--must maintain.) I realize that to have a publishable story presupposes the disclosure of something new and interesting--and that, therefore, there is no point in granting permission for a specific story and then, by means of the blue-pencil, cutting out all the essential and vital elements of the story. I realize, too, that one of the elements involved in this matter of submission of manuscript is the fact that the mores of journalism do not always allow for sufficient time by Pentagon standards for a competent digest of the material by responsible officials. (Here, I believe that with reasonable cooperation this point could easily be solved.)
What do you think of this idea?2
Another related and thorny part of this entire problem is the press conference. It is difficult to be constantly on the alert against being pushed, through loaded or tricky questions, into statements which, taken out of context, prove startling and embarrassing. I do think, however, that it is dangerous to hold a press conference in advance of an event. Too often, it seems to me, we are then trapped into a revelation of confidential Government planning. Finally, in spite of some criticism that has been levelled against me for the scarcity of the conferences I have held, I still firmly believe that it is better not to hold a conference unless there are developments that warrant it (and which will pretty much direct the questioning).
As I say, these are random weekend thoughts. Perhaps we can discuss the whole question at length at one of our sessions. As ever
