"I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger," President Kennedy told the American Newspaper Publishers Association. "This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern to both the press and to the President—two requirements which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril." Then the President asked his audience to reconsider the meaning of freedom of the press.
Secret Societies. A closed society, said the President, venturing forth on one of his favorite current topics, enjoys distinct advantages over the open society of the U.S.: "Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined . . . No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no democracy would ever hope—or wish—to match."
By contrast, said the President, "the very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.* We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it ... This I do not intend to permit."
Perhaps the time had come, the President concluded, to re-examine the responsibilities of a free society's free press: "This nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire . . . The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning . . . But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security . .. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: 'Is it news?' All I suggest is that you add the question: 'Is it in the interest of national security?' "
Less than Specific. The rolling presidential rhetoric did not conceal the fact that his message was a reprise of a dusty theme, one that his audience had heard and pondered often in the past. Nor in Kennedy's echoing generalities did the publishers discover any new approaches to a problem as old as democracy itself but now more complex than ever: a free press's obligations to the national interest. The polite applause for Kennedy's speech had barely died away before the press began to point out that the President had been less than specific.
"Let's make it clear," said the New York Daily News, "that we don't begrudge President John F. Kennedy his right to tell newspapers what to do—a right which he exercised at length. After all, every newspaper we know of, including this one, has been telling J.F.K. what to do ever since he took office. But we wish that Mr. Kennedy had spelled out more clearly his thoughts on what the American press should not print in these cold war days." Said Scott Newhall, executive editor of the San Francisco Chronicle: "I see no reason to modify our present practice of responsible news editing. Mr. Kennedy should be more specific about what it is he wants."