The United States has learned in its 200-year history that "a free and unfettered press is the best underpinning of a society free to be liberal or conservative," says Marvin Kalb in the following interview with editor Mark Smith. Kalb, who spent 30 years as an award-winning diplomatic correspondent with two major U.S. television news networks, heads the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.




Question: Alexander Hamilton, one of America's Founding Fathers,once said that freedom of the press, "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion." Would you agree with that?

Kalb: Hamilton had it both right and wrong. He had it right in the sense that the value of a journalist's work, when repudiated by the public, when regarded as cynical and domineering, is thrown into doubt and confusion. For whom, after all, is the journalist writing or, in more recent times, broadcasting if not for the benefit of the public? If he/she loses the public,then the journalist loses his/her mandate. Put in purely commercial terms, if the public stops buying a newspaper, the newspaper goes out of business. Public support, therefore, is crucial in the marketplace. But Hamilton had it wrong -- though he accurately reflected the conservative views of his time -- for implying that public and/or the government's approval of a journalist's work is crucial. Public opinion can swing to the left or the right, but a journalist should be pursuing a fair rendition of truth without regard to popular moods. What we have learned in the United States after more than 200 years is that a free and unfettered press is the best underpinning of a society free to be liberal or conservative. The journalist should not be swayed by public opinion, only by the pursuit of truth, as close as he or she can get to it.

Q: Is the freedom of the press in the United States the consequence of First Amendment guarantees alone?

A: A free press must have a legal, constitutional guarantee, but that is not all it needs. It needs an independent judiciary and an independent legislature -- independent of the arbitrary power of the president or prime minister or chairman of a political party. Independence of governmental authority is the key. This is admittedly very difficult to achieve without the economic means to buy space and time.

Q: Yes, and most of us would agree that one of the cornerstones of press freedom in the United States is the abundance of privately owned, profitable media. But does the desire for profits make it difficult for private media, particularly television, to cover the news with the depth and seriousness it deserves?

A: There would appear to be a contradiction between serious news and the demands of the marketplace -- increasingly so, as one watches prime-time television news magazines and even the evening newscasts. The salvation, however, lies in the technology itself, which produces a vast menu of choices. The viewer can now watch not just the three evening newscasts, whose joint rating has dropped to less than 50 percent of the audience, but also many other news programs on cable, such as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and more immediate, direct access to the Internet. It takes more time and effort initially for the viewer to find quality programming, but it does exist. It merely awaits the viewer's discovery.

Q: How would you define the proper relationship of the press to government and the political process?

A. The press should be neither adversarial nor friendly, though if I had to choose one over the other, I would prefer adversarial. The press should go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government. It should keep its distance. My concern is that the Washington press corps, without doubt the most powerful and influential in the world, is too cozy with governmental officials. Competition is so severe that journalists feel the need to cultivate and nurture sources, and sources take advantage of the situation to play one journalist off against another. Beware of all those smiles!

Q: Under what circumstances are governments justified in limiting access to information, and are journalists within their rights in publishing such information?

A: Governments are fully justified in limiting access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution, and journalists are fully justified in pursuing such information -- and publishing or broadcasting such information. This is a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government's right -- indeed, obligation -- to protect national security; and the people's right to know, based on the journalist's ability to get the news. At the end of the day, however, theory retreats before reality. If the publication of a story, in the journalist's view, runs the risk of jeopardizing lives, then the journalist should decide not to publish or broadcast. But the decision must belong to the journalist, not to the government. This is very tricky turf.

Q: In a recent editorial you asked whether the news media can continue to function as independent observers at a time of unprecedented mega-mergers and technological breakthroughs that change the economic underpinning of the entire enterprise of journalism. Would you care to hazard a preliminary response to your own question?

A: The question I raised in a recent issue of The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics is central to the future of a free press, and the honest answer is I do not know. But I hope and pray and ultimately believe that the marketplace will find a balance between the mega-merged corporations and the emerging opportunities provided by high technology for new companies. The glory of the free marketplace is that it does not play favorites. A good idea is rewarded. Finally, what seems dreadful and frightening today may be utterly different tomorrow. So rapidly is the world changing in this time of the communications revolution, opening doors but more important opening minds to new ideas. Today is only a prelude to the excitement of tomorrow.

Issues of Democracy
eJournal USA, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1997