The Press: Free Press v. War

At World War I’s end, tough-minded, ingenious Kent Cooper, traffic manager of the Associated Press, was in Paris. There he suggested to Allied peacemakers that the Versailles Treaty include a clause guaranteeing worldwide freedom of the press. He got astute support from Colonel Edward M. House, but from few others.

This week Kent Cooper, now A.P.’s executive director, renewed the fight. In an article written for a “Journalism in War-Time” symposium, he proposed that international freedom of news exchange be made a cardinal principle of any future peace treaties. Back of his proposal was a sound newsman’s unshakable conviction: if universal dissemination of truth can be guaranteed in the postwar world, the chances of new wars occurring will become remote. Said he:

“One cause of war [is] perverted presentation of international news. . . . And it is the truth that makes men free.”

He conceded the probability that newsmen would not be allowed to sit at the peace table. Nevertheless, he suggested, let journalists unite, demand a peace treaty clause on press freedom. Specifically, he urged that foreign correspondents be given free and direct access to all the news of all nations, with equal facilities for sending the news to their own countries.

Better Chance? This time Kent Cooper’s proposal seemed to have some chance. Precedent had already been established.

At the urging of Cordell Hull, the Moscow Conference agreed, in language reminiscent of the U.S. Bill of Rights, that: “Freedom of speech, of religious worship, of political belief, of press and of public meeting shall be restored in full measure to the Italian people. . ..”* Even a hard-headed realist like Kent Cooper had reason to hope that Allied statesmen would feel the same way about Germany and other Axis powers, that Russia would fall into line of her own motion.

Said Edwin L. James, managing editor of the New York Times:

“Of course, a free press cannot be decreed by a peace treaty. . . . But to have the principle of a free press consecrated in the peace treaty is going to [help]. . . . One can be cynical and argue that it is all eyewash because Stalin is no more going to permit a free press in Russia than he has in the past. That may be true, and then again it may not.

“It might be imagined that the position of Stalin after the war will be such that he and his party need not fear an opposition press. . . . But, in any event, Americans who believe that there resides some virtue in a free press ought to be thankful to Judge Hull. . . . The matter of a free press is now on the peace table agenda.”

*Says the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble… “