‘The Times’ argues with ‘Washington Post’

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33252, 15 June 1973, Page 9

‘The Times’ argues with ‘Washington Post’

(By

BRUCE KOHN,

N.Z.P.A. staff correspondent)

WASHINGTON, June 14. Two of the world’s most renowned newspapers, “The Times” of London and the “Washington Post” are editorially at odds over the manner in which the Watergate affair is being probed. Their wrangle of words—involving the role of newspapers and television in carrying on investigative reporting of the affair while judicial proceedings are in process, concerns the place of news media in acting as a public watchdog on the con(duct of political life.

The British newspaper declared in its issue of June 5 that President Richard Nixon was receiving the Washington variant of “lynch law.” It said that while the President might or might not be innocent he might never be proved guilty by a process “so clearly lacking in justice.” Three forms “The Times” recorded the three main forms of trial taking place simultaneously: the Ervin Committee in the Senate, the grand jury, and the media, including the “Washington Post” and the “New York Times.” It had this to say of the Ervin committee hearings: "The enormous publicity

given to hearsay evidence in televised hearings is so prejudicial that it alone would seem to preclude the possibility of a fair trial for any accused, even including the President himself if there were impeachment proceedings. “Britain,” said “The Times,” . abandoned the grand jury system because of its notorious weakness as an instrument of justice. Grand jury proceedings provide the prosecutor with opportunities to introduce prejudicial evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law. “The Watergate grand jury proceedings have been widely leaked. The public has therefore a partial and unreliable account of these proceedings that must be more damaging to the administration of justice than if there were a full account or no account at all. The; publication of alleged reports; of proceedings held in camera would be contempt of court under British law.” The third tribunal was the press, with television. But for the work of the "Washington Post” the Watergate scandal would not have been uncovered, "The Times” said. The American press, and the “Washington Post” m particular, deserved full! credit for forcing Watergate; into the open. ‘Prejudicial matter’ "They are however now! publishing vast quantities of I I prejudicial matter, that i

would be contempt under j British law.” The London newspaper■ referred particularly to leaks i

i of testimony offered to investigators by John W. Dean, former White House legal counsel, a witness hostile to the President, not open to cross-examination by the President’s counsel, on whose evidence could well be based public conclusions which could destroy a President of the United States. “What the President is accused of that really matters is to have inter fered with the course of justice. That would be as grave an offence as a President could commit. Yet are not the Senate committee who are taking and publishing hearsay evidence . . . also interfering with the course of I I justice?” The newspaper quoted ■ Senator Ervin: "It is much more important for the American public to know the truth . . . than sending onej 'or two people to gaol.” "That,” declared “The Times,” “is not only interfering with the course of justice but justifying the decision to do so.” Dealing with United States newspapers, “The Times” called a leak from Dean a real piece of hanging evidence, the missing element, it believed, I in a chain of proof. “Here is a piece of wholly suspect evidence, unsworn, unverified, (not cross-examined, contradicting previous evidence, (subject to none of the guards (of due process, given by a man who may be bargaining (for his freedom. “How can the newspapers defend themselves from the very’ charge that they are bringing against the President, the charge of making a ijfair trial impossible, if they

now publish evidence so I damning and so doubtful with < all the weight of their i authority that their publics- < tion gives?” 1 The Dean testimony to 1 which "The Times” referred I I concerned his statement that ' the had discussed aspects of ' the Watergate cover-up with ’ the President on at least 35 ’ occasions this year. 1 The "Washington Post” said that the American public would have the chance to ' see for itself how damning or doubtful Dean’s testimony!! ! was when he appeared before (i the Ervin committee. His I [testimony would be subject!' ■!to challenge by senators,!' (staff members, and subseJquent witnesses. ( j "As for the weight of ■ newspaper reports, it is as 1 ( nothing compared with the 1 (weight of an American' President capable of com-i i manding all three television i networks in his own defence. ' WTiat is now being published ' iis no different in essence i from the early investigative ' reporting of Watergate.” ' Less necessary j A press campaign such as, ! it had mounted would be less ( ' necessary in Britain, the , “Washington Post” said. , (| "For how long would a 1 British Government remain in ;'office if it had lied systematicnally to the press, and by ex- ; tension to the Congress and (the public for 10 months? If ;iit had grosslv misled the pubiilic on a critical issue? If two > : of its principal figures and • assorted lesser lights had i.been forced to resign? If two; /lof its former Cabinet Minis- j

ters had been indicted for crimes? If illegal as well as unethical conduct had been conceded to have occurred in the campaign that brought it to office? If it had plainly engaged in a massive effort to obstruct justice? If it had approved a broad campaign of admittedly illegal security measures in clear violation of individual rights? ‘We are not Britain' "We are not Britain We have a different set of checks and balances which grant a President a fixed term of while holding him I answerable every day to the .judgement of the people he ■ serves. “It is only in this sense that the President is on trial before the Ervin committee or in the press. And it is for this reason that the Watergate crisis, which is in a very real sense a crisis of confidence in Government, cannot await the determination, on narrow legal grounds, of criminal guilt or innocence. “We are dealing here not with specific isolated crimes but with a whole style and manner and method of governing. We are dealing, in jthe end, with the President’s capacity to govern, which derives, in turn, from public trust.”