Conversation 859-034

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

How are you?

Oh, sure.

I haven't, no.

I've made on a trip, the first one next week to Mexico, which is one of the biggest places.

I've got Mexico City and Guadalajara.

The reason I do this is because it's easy to get there.

And I really have to be working on the budget and getting ready for those damn hearings.

They're always hard.

Yeah, so I'm doing that trip.

And then I'm going to try to do West Jersey, where we have .

And then I hope, after I get the hearing done, like next summer,

Eastern Europe, Russia, go through that whole thing, which I think is tremendously important.

And make that a fairly extensive one if I can get the budget tamped down so that they're not going to take all the money.

What is the situation?

Well, it looks pretty good.

You see, last year they tried to, they asked the Fulbright, tried to cut $45 million off, which would have been about 25%.

And he was just sheer bitterness, the worst of everything.

This year so far, I hope we're going to get by that.

I think maybe we'll be able to hold where we are.

Now, last year, Fulbright was defeated when he tried to do that by a whole Democratic Republican group, largely led by McKee.

who's an old friend of mine.

I went to school with him out in Nebraska.

He's a very good man.

He's a good man.

Very good man.

So I think he'll be helpful to us.

Obviously, we're presenting the case for America in our work.

You never know how big this investment is.

You can't measure and mark on all your senses.

We know that we live in a world where if this is not done, we're not going to get any action.

And I think what you've been saying is correct.

Play the line that we're going to show America with all these awards and credits, but don't do it at all.

You know, I know exactly what you have in mind.

Always say that.

And then do what is necessary to present it basically in a propaganda way.

But some don't.

I think the whole...

uh, Frank Shakespeare may have, and then he didn't do a good job because he had to turn the thing around, but he may have gotten, been so blunt in some of his statements about this and that and the other thing that he, uh, may have gotten their guards up at times.

Uh, it was probably necessary at that time over an element period where you would take over and, uh, sort of, you know, uh, gloat and,

just this running operation that is very, and redirected toward, I don't know if it's really not far American, but whatever that word means, broad, and yet has become objective and has actually taken together competent people working with it.

When you think of the U.S. Army, this is a personal problem.

We've got hardly any compared to them.

Not that we need to, but they can't be complained too much about that.

No, I certainly don't think they can.

In other words, the U.S. Army has put out a book that I don't know if you've seen it, about the coming of the second.

No, I haven't seen it.

Well, I wrote it last late fall.

It was early fall.

I wrote it.

So when I was up on the hill the other day, I pulled out this book.

And this is one of the things he challenged me.

He said, did you write this?

He said, but this is political propaganda.

Why is the US not doing that?

Well, the explanation for it is that we distribute it around the world, not the United States.

And so it's used to show what the direction of the country is going to take in the next 40 years.

And he grumbled about it, but then kind of let it drop.

Well, we don't give them any obvious shots to make, and don't make it a cult of personality and all the rest, that we don't want that.

But we have a lot to make the United States, you know, there's a lot we're going to be talking about the establishment position of leadership of the United States the rest of the time, where nobody else, no other country, they all know that, whereas the Europeans are involved.

And I would base it on the whole business of not trying to build up love for America and respect for it.

We don't expect more.

We don't expect any thanks for what we do for people all the rest of the time.

one thing i told these people to do in the last couple of weeks was to play the prisoner pictures stories statements fully everywhere

And I think they're doing it, you know, but I've been able to, to, to follow it.

They return.

It's a very emotional thing.

They all say, God bless America, whatever.

It's going to be better for you.

So what?

Well, I think it's legitimate, and I think they're doing it better.

The feedback I'm getting now, I think we're getting it out pretty well anyway.

You know, I've come on a couple of things that...

I got a copy of it the other day, published by USIA.

A story on the re-election, and I was fine.

But then, a big story on women's lib with pictures of lesbians.

Big story on black revolutionists.

Get the people to put it out.

We just have to stop it now.

What the hell is that?

Who's publishing this?

Well, that's what I've done now in the process of trying to find out who's responsible for it and what happened then.

You know, it was really, really, I thought it was an old time.

I must have said it.

It really disgusted me and I. I thought, I don't know.

I don't know how to do it with morality.

I don't know how to do it with the right team.

But here's time.

Magazine.

So how do you do that?

Magazine.

I have no objection to that sort of thing.

I have objection.

I personally, but I don't guess you're appearing in Playboy or Esquire or the rest, but for that to be in Time Magazine and six pages of it is a goddamn terrible thing to do.

Now, I agree with you.

I think they usually do the same thing the next week now.

And what I mean is that, sure, that's a side of America.

These things happen.

People do these things.

And people also go to the can, but you don't show them shit from the door to the front of the record.

That's what I mean.

It's unbelievable.

Well, you know, I fear that time is going the same way that .

So then they moved to sensationalism and then finally they went down.

Looked at the same thing.

They went to sensationalism and then to scandalousism and then to all-out pornography and the rest of it.

Now, life, same ugly matter.

You know, life is great.

they went to the sensational, the offbeat, and that sort of thing, finished.

Now, there are other reasons, maybe the picture magazines won't go, but I'm absolutely sure, if I don't mind, that Time continues to report that basic, offbeat, queer side of America.

that it's not long for this work.

I agree.

And I think they're having a terrible time, terrible trouble there.

And why the hell don't they get it back since one battle?

What's the trouble?

Who's the editor now?

The editor is Henry Cromwell.

You may remember him.

Right, well.

You may remember him.

And this is the kind of thing he goes for.

Well, basically, it's the question here.

He's part of the New York liberal Jewish movement.

Exactly.

And this is the kind of crap that they go for.

But that's not the question.

I understand the problem.

It's not a moral problem.

People go through all sorts of sex things.

That's not an issue.

But then, we don't advertise that as what America is in particular.

You know, you say what you want, but it's not a problem.

It's a problem.

Do you have any thoughts, gentlemen?

I told him, and we've had to speak very candidly about this, that I thought Shakespeare had done a fine job, but that Franklin had very strong convictions, which were directed down the direction of the USIA, sometimes because he was so blunt and unsung, got in more trouble than he needed to.

And I told him to do the same, but I'm not talking about him.

How does that sound to you?

That's right.

I said, now, on the other hand, besides what Jim said publicly in his hearings, that the job of the USIA is to show America what it's known.

I said, that's fine, but don't let the awards block out the picture of the real America.

In other words, say that so that the peers can be objective.

The USIA should present.

Basically, in order to get balance, let's face it, state-owned televisions are wrong, and most of our television are wrong, and television and magazines are the name of the game, including Time and Newsweek show the works of America.

So goddamn it, let the U.S.R.A.

put a little balance in.

Let's see, not, not, not, not completely simply the, the one-sided picture that everything's hunky-dory, but there's a hell of a lot more that's right in this country than the media abroad here.

Take somebody who goes to the police in Paris,

who lives in Europe.

You know what they see?

They read Times and Newsweek, which shows a totally distorted, negative picture of America.

What else do they read?

They read the New York Herald Tribune, the European Dignity, which combines the worst features of both the Post, Washington Post, and the New York Times.

It is probably the most biased paper in America, in the world, as far as America is concerned.

Now, that's what they read.

I got them.

You are sorry.

Please don't represent something else.

I think that's absolutely right.

Another thing that the foreign audience doesn't know is the rational explanation of why we act.

If you take any of the sets we took in Vietnam, our opponents always describe the president as irrational, rash, and so forth.

There's very rarely a coherent explanation of why we act as we do.

The State Department very often puts out these things.

I'll have tea, too.

The State Department tends to put out this apologetic stuff, rejecting the attacks but not giving a strong word.

Frank was really tremendously loyal and absolutely on the right line.

too much of a sledgehammer approach.

And then he had his own fish to fry, vis-a-vis Eastern Europe.

And we are playing a very complicated game with China, Russia, and Eastern Europe.

Yeah, but Frank did not understand the China issue.

In fact, he almost resigned over it.

He didn't understand the Russian thing.

He didn't like that.

Because he is a hard guy.

Thank God he is, because we need to balance in that direction.

But you understand these things.

And I think if we can... For example, one thing, Henry, I would suggest...

I think one thing USIA might do, I don't know whether this is going to get in trouble, maybe it shouldn't be done, but with all the criticism that we had of the abroad on the war, and particularly on the December bombing, now it seems to me that some definitive objective piece

should get around and talk to people who are, I don't know whether you can do it or not.

You may not be too much trouble with the full rights and all the rest who have to prove that you were wrong.

But, well, for example, one thing that you can do, you should run, say they put out the border, so telegrams and cables from leaders abroad regarding the Vietnam Peace Summit, so that they ought to get out.

You ought to know that that's

impression that everybody hates the United States, fears the United States, and so forth.

Well, let's face it, if somebody is setting a mistheory in the New York Times that the December bomb bombing and the result cost the United States a great deal,

probably counts of world affection, but gains a great deal of world respect.

Of course, that's the name of the game.

And I think it's important that, it seems to me, that it's perfectly proper for USIA to put out the fact that he is doing field documents, which is really nice, because that means that he loves someone.

And maybe you don't want to use a signer.

Maybe, you certainly don't want to.

I don't think USIA should get in the business

of, uh, of defensively pointing out, uh, the, uh, I mean, the, uh, what happened to Vietnam and the rest.

Maybe you'd better stay off of that.

Maybe you ought to emphasize more, uh, that the world's saying.

Now, one thing I think you ought to do, Janice, Janice, if she does say anything,

I'd like for you to take Kevin's world report when it comes out, you know, it's a big thing, but I would like for you to concise it, you know what I mean, and put up and say these are, you know, maybe next service and so forth, so that we get, we'll of course mail it, we send it to you earlier and so forth, but here's an opportunity for you to really use that as a state document of the highest importance, I don't know how you're going to do it, is there some way you can do that?

I think we can, I think there's a way to,

Without a summary.

Condensed it, a summary, and published it widely.

I don't think...

But you see, it covers the whole, well, it covers the whole world.

The Congress cannot object to that.

See, that's the presidential statement.

They cannot object to that.

It covers the whole world.

And in there, you'll have a good, strong statement of Vietnam, which it probably is.

See?

But what I'd like you to do is to get out a human reading as an editor, and then condense it, and say, here are some highlights, or say highlights from the World Report.

That's quite legitimate.

There's no reason we can't do that and send it all the way back.

Are you in charge also of exchange?

We're not really in charge of exchange.

The state is in charge of that, but USIA administered it.

We handle it.

The state really runs it.

It's Richard at the state.

John Richardson.

Does he determine who goes and so forth?

Yes, he determines who goes.

I want to ask for our consideration in mind here.

I want to invite you to some of those programs.

I'm not going to have a budget on that.

It varies.

I'm going to represent the United States.

I mean,

And Bernstein gave this peace mask down here on the eve of your inauguration, even though he knew that you had stopped the bombing all over Vietnam at that point.

Well, his name is on the list of areas responsible for the fire.

I just want that clearly to be shown.

No more.

He does not represent the United States.

And I'll take exchange.

You do have a fair trade fair.

We handle exhibits.

Congress handles some of the commercial exhibits, but we have exhibits, especially in Eastern Europe.

And then we have some people we send abroad for lecture tours.

I like that.

They're very carefully selected, and I think I can control those pretty fairly.

I mean, while you're in here, I'd like to talk to you about, you know,

Fulbright is a great pay.

Fulbright Scholars.

Let me tell you what is happening there.

First, as far as those we send abroad are concerned, it's a dead loser.

Second, on the other side,

The students who come from abroad in the United States, particularly those who come from America, have less talent than America.

They may come back here with good manners.

They may be highly responsible.

But they're so poisoned by what they get here, they go back and become the revolutionaries.

I've got to have that term.

We've just got to stop that now.

Well, let me say this.

Another thing that occurred to me, Henry, is that with Jim, that when we have some major initiative, you know, that we're undertaking, that he is so, you know,

And people are so time-consuming.

I know, Henry, Henry, too often, you know, in this case in the past, we have had to let the state take the lead in our policies that we're on, or in protecting them.

Now, I think we ought to do something.

What do you think?

I'm good.

You know, you can talk to Jim just like this, and he's going to go out and legal for the place, and he's going to go out and it's a question for you as well.

It's just a question.

I'm carrying that question.

And so, but he will have to sit in on the agent.

I would have no problem at all sitting in on some major NSC agent when we get to a point where we're ready to go across.

If it's a series of tactical decisions, it doesn't do him any good, but if it's a major decision...

When we've come to the point, for example, that we're making a major decision, and that's the only time that we do it, because the tactics of it are...

But I think it will build him up, too, just by having him on the church.

That's the point I just wanted to make.

If the appearance of being a man, as you well know, is so important to the law, why are you saying Henry was less on the European issue?

That's something that Jeremy could reset again when we have a discussion of it.

And I just have him in and let him know that when he goes to Europe and they don't think he knows all about it.

Do you understand what I mean?

Absolutely.

And also another thing, he could contribute to it.

I mean, he would.

With Brandon, you know, you could, as he said, make it because he did it each time.

But the generalists in there have no idea what to say.

But let's find an occasion.

We do have to understand.

Like, for example, another one.

be considerate on that.

We now, when it's a question of what do we do about salt and all the rest, not until we get to the point where we know what the hell we're going to do, because that's all handwritten, frankly.

They read it handwritten.

That is something where, when we get it out of the church doors, that is where you can march in and say, here it is.

It's an end result, right?

As I say, I can be a lot more effective over there if there is an impression that I'm involved.

So that becomes important in trying to do the job.

Who is your committee now?

Is it Lewis or do you stand in line?

Well, Stanton is out, and the new committee hasn't been appointed, but it has been announced, but it should be.

It's supposed to be Hope as chair, which I like.

I think he's a good man, and...

They're all over the world, and yes, it's a good rationale for it, and I'm willing to work with my publisher.

And then the new member is to be Leonard Rensch.

Good.

Who is the coxswain.

You know him.

I know him.

Yes, but he's a vixen down here.

But he's a very good man.

Yes, yes.

He's interested and wants to do it.

So those, that team, the fellows who are there.

We have a group of people that we can work with.

We're all around Southern.

Is Mitch Nitzel on it?

Mitch Nitzel on it.

and he's uh i've gotten to know him a little bit but he's all right he's a lot better than i thought he was yeah he's a democrat too but he's basically you have to yeah by law you have to have a certain percentage of democrats well henry if you could uh if we could feel it when we do have basically as we may in pr what i would like to do is

and we've not been able to do this before, we're on retreats.

In addition to sitting down with Sidney, we've got Jim in the lane, so he can handle the board and stuff.

And that's better than having McCluskey out of state.

You see my point?

And I think McCluskey's gotta be informed.

But you see, Jim can help work the strategy out, if that's what I mean.

Would you be able to say that?

Well, I think that's what he was talking about.

You know, I think, John, you should also point out, and you can go around, that you have very close cooperation with the President, with the State Department, et cetera.

We've had all these talks.

You can point out that we want the U.S. to stay on the projects, but we want it to present in a...

a total picture of America, not a one-sided picture.

And frankly, if the media are presenting a one-sided picture, you're gonna balance it all the other way.

Now, here's the reason why I shouldn't say that publicly, is there?

I don't want you to make that case to that effort.

I think you should make it on the Hill, particularly.

Sure.

You could say, look, gentlemen, first, we want people abroad to see America as it is.

We also, but we cannot operate in that action because the people of Prague are seeing the ugly side of America.

They're seeing it over and over again.

We have no objection to that because of Senate.

But we think that it is also our job to present the other side of America so they can see that too.

What do you think?

I think it's a good idea, but we do not complain about showing America's

wrong with america and many of our people abroad much of this is done because you should also point out that taking on america has become virtually a policy that many countries or many leaders abroad have found this

It's very helpful to them in their domestic politics.

We don't object to that.

But we, on the other hand, feel it was our responsibility to set the record straight, to keep the record straight.

Because this is true all over the world.

When you go to Mexico, you run into the president there.

He's been a son of a bitch.

He's kicking us every time.

I talked to Helms about it every time he was here.

He said, well, he talked Helms down that road on vacation and said he got along.

to the, you know, other president and all that stuff.

Well, he has a goddamn fair way of showing it.

You know what I mean?

How, how, I don't want him to get out, but he doesn't need to welcome him.

I'm ending.

And he was there.

He speaks to get the hell out of this.

Now, the, all over the world, we're running into that now.

And so it doesn't mean that you should get into those battles, except that I believe that gives you the rationale for presenting.

the truth about it.

Basically, you say we want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But as far as the whole truth is concerned, let us remember that that requires knocking down the lies, and it also requires presenting the balance.

And we can counter distortion.

I mean, that's supposed to be part of our mission.

But we should give the impression that we ought to

Uh, one of the problems from which we suffer right now is that our own intellectual attainments of an irrational society, that we are no longer respectable in the media in so many of these countries.

They don't have to agree with us, as long as they think that we are serious, concerned, and both.

That's the same idea.

We don't necessarily want to be loved, but we insist on being respected.

And I think that can be done.

I told the president the Chinese showed me a film they made of the table tennis scene.

I'm going to get it and I'll let you see it.

It's the best pro-American propaganda that I've seen.

They made it and are they circulating it?

Yes, they're showing it all over China.

Have you got the film?

No, but I'm going to get it because it is really beautiful.

How did you get it?

I don't know.

Very interesting.

It's really beautifully done.

The Russians have made one that I'm trying to get into, probably, if I'm sure you've heard about this.

Of the president, for instance.

No, they've made one that's anti, that shows all the worst part of our lives.

Drugs.

Yeah.

None of this shows that.

What they really do is to use the visit of the table tennis team as an excuse of the travelogue about America.

They show maybe three minutes of matches and 27 minutes of America.

It's actually more than 40 minutes.

Very little about tabletop.

It's just they're using their people in France.

They showed Williamsburg, they showed Washington, Detroit, Los Angeles.

They showed England.

Oh, very good.

Very good.

Well, the Russians, I expect, either the Russians or the Chinese have given up on their communist beliefs.

They're going to continue to push it.

But that means that we have to announce that, and we will.

We got a while to launch some.

Yeah, indeed.

Actually, that's exactly the position I take over there.

I'm not trying to sell now, but with everybody.

Okay.

All right.

We'll see you this afternoon.

Henry, let's run.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good luck.

You keep in touch.

Henry, who's the passport to your shop?

So that when you have to call or one of your people, you get a hold of the so-called presenters usually out of town.