Reed Irvine - Editor
Television is increasingly combining drama and documentaries by recreating what purports to be history and presenting it as true-to-life drama. Presumably this attracts a larger audience than a straight documentary using narration and old film clips.
But it also opens the door to the rewriting of history. There is good evidence that those producing these dramas don't feel any strong obligation to stick to the literal truth. The result is that the dramas that are being presented frequently mislead and misinform the viewers. Not surprisingly, the distortions seem to fall into a pattern. They help push a "message."
Accuracy in Media has received a number of complaints about these so-called "true-to-life" dramas. Here are some examples of their distortions.
On October 18, 1975, NBC aired "The Deadly Tower," a re-enactment of a 1968 incident at the University of Texas. A young man named Charles Whitman mounted the tower on the university campus in Austin, Texas. From his perch he shot 48 people, killing 16 of them. His deadly spree was finally brought to a halt by two Austin city policemen, who managed to get to the top of the tower and shoot Whitman dead.
One of the policemen was named Ramiro Martinez. To add drama to its production, and to sneak in a "message," NBC portrayed Martinez as a conscientious member of the Austin police force who had been passed over twice for promotion. NBC implied that he was the victim of racial discrimination, since he was shown as having made superior grades on the tests required for promotion.
His wife was portrayed by NBC as being highly resentful of the treatment her husband had received. She had urged him to quit his job. On the day of the sniping, Martinez was at home. Hearing on the radio of the trouble at the University. Martinez decided to go help his fellow officers. His wife was shown tearfully begging him not to do so. She told him he was not appreciated anyway.
According to the NBC drama, Martinez disregarded these pleas. He risked his life, got to the top of the tower without being spotted by the sniper and shot him dead with his revolver.
The message was clear. The Austin police force was discriminating against Mexican-Americans, and Ramiro Martinez had put these racists in their place by performing a deed of heroism on his day off.
It was good drama, but it was not true to life. According to Dorothy Faber, a columnist who lives in Austin, Ramiro Martinez said: "This business about being passed over for promotion is just a lot of malarkey." He said that he had always been treated fairly by the Austin police department, and he was proud to have been a member of the department. He is now with the state police, the Texas Rangers, and so he was not just buttering up his former employers.
Martinez was reportedly angry about the way NBC portrayed his wife. He said: "Everything was completely wrong. That was not my wife - in no way whatsoever." He said the producers of the NBC film had spoken to him very briefly about the tower incident, and "from that point on, I guess they just improvised."
Not only did NBC misrepresent the feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Martinez about the Austin police, but they also deprived another member of the police force the credit that was due him for having helped put an end to Whitman's murderous spree. The fact is that another member of the police force, Houston McCoy, mounted the tower with Martinez. He was armed with a shotgun, and both he and Martinez fired at Whitman. This was reported in the news stories at the time. The autopsy revealed that the shot that actually killed Whitman came from McCoy's shotgun, not Martinez's revolver.
This does not detract from tile heroism of Martinez, but the NBC version did certainly detract from the heroism of McCoy.
N.Y. TIMES KNOCKS SOUTH KOREA; TAKES MONEY FROM NORTH
Communist North Korea has paid The New York Times many thousands of dollars over the past year for full-page ads that extol the virtues of Dictator Kim II Sung and slander the United States and our ally, the Republic of Korea.
These ads always contain clear misstatements of fact, and they are therefore accepted in violation of the announced policies governing acceptability of advertising by The Times. AIM has pointed this out forcefully in the past, going so far as to pay for space in The Times to bring this to the attention of readers of that newspaper. For some mysterious reason, The Times is willing to waive its rules for Kim II Sung.
What is even more disgraceful, however, is the willingness of The Times to employ its news columns to knock South Korea, while it remains respectfully silent about the things that are wrong with Kim II Sung's fiefdom in the north.
A recent example was seen on November 21, 1975. The Times carried a lengthy story by its Tokyo correspondent, Richard Halloran, under this headline: "U.S. Banks Grow Cautious on Loans for South Korea as Its Debt Surges." The story carried a Seoul dateline, giving the impression that Halloran had gotten his information from American bankers in Korea. The story pointed out that American banks accounted for 83.5 per cent of the foreign bank loans and credit lines to Korea. The message of the story was that South Korea was going to have trouble sustaining its economic growth because it was going to find it difficult to borrow needed capital from abroad.
Four days after this confidence-shaking story, was published, the Foreign Bankers' Association in South Korea sent a letter to The Times, which said that Richard Halloran had not talked to a single American banker resident in Korea to the knowledge of the Association. The letter said: "The article does not represent the views of our membership, which includes the largest commercial lenders to Korea. South Korea's record of prompt payment and ability, to raise the funds necessary, for its development speaks for itself. We suggest you focus your attention on the northern part of the peninsula where $500 million in foreign debt is in default."
On January 5, Accuracy in Media sent a letter to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Chairman of The New York Times, asking if this letter from the American bankers in Korea had been published. We also sent a lengthy article from the Washington Post of December 21, 1975, which described the North Korean default on its external debts, alluded to in the bankers' letter. According to this story, North Korea in recent years had greatly stepped up its imports from Japan and Western Europe, buying on credit. According to The Post, North Korea has been unable to meet its payment obligations. The creditor countries are cutting off or threatening to cut off new credits, and North Korea has been forced to sharply reduce imports. The Post pointed out that this casts strong doubt on North Korean claims, trumpeted in its paid ads in The New York Times, that it had completed its six-year economic plan a year ahead of schedule.
We asked Mr. Sulzberger if The Times had carried any story about these serious economic difficulties in North Korea.
As we go to press, Mr. Sulzberger has not answered either of our questions. We infer that the answer to both questions is negative. But the readers of The Times have not been completely deprived of news from the North. The Times did publish the "New Year Address of the Great Leader President Kim II Sung," raking in many thousands of dollars for performing this service.
Would Kim II Sung quit running expensive full-page ads in The Times if that paper started printing the truth about him and his country? Would The Times quit printing misleading stories about South Korea if that country were to take out a large number of expensive full-page ads? The very suggestion seems indecent, but it can't be denied that the behavior of The Times in this case is very peculiar, to say the least.
NBC has admitted to AIM that it has no evidence that Ramiro Martinez and his wife felt that he had been discriminated against by the police department. They claim to have some evidence of discrimination by the Austin police, but they refuse to say what it is. They do not dispute that the autopsy showed that the shots that killed Whitman came from McCoy's shotgun, but they say that they feel justified in portraying Martinez as having felled Whitman all by himself.
The refusal to admit that the distortion was wrong tends to confirm that it was purposeful. Was it done simply to hike up the drama? Or was the main motive the creation of a message? The answer is probably both, but the real message that emerges is that viewers who are interested in truth had better beware of TV dramas that bear messages.
ABC on January 4, 1976, provided another illustration of television's propensity to favor the dramatic over the accurate in its recent dramatic recreation of the clash between President Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur.
ABC showed MacArthur trying to upstage Truman at the time of their historic meeting on Wake Island. According to their version, MacArthur tried to delay his landing until after the President had landed. They showed Truman ordering the general to land. Even then, MacArthur allegedly kept the President waiting.
This story was based on an account published in a book by Merle Miller, who had interviewed Harry Truman when he was in his dotage and his once excellent memory had deteriorated. The Miller version of the meeting at Wake was denounced as false when the book came out by journalists and other who had been present at the meeting. These denials were well publicized at the time. ABC nevertheless decided to use the debunked Miller version in its "true-to-life" dramatization.
Some of the most mendacious television dramas have been the recreation of famous trials. One of the most recent of these was an NBC production called "Guilty or Innocent: The Sam Sheppard Murder Case." The film was widely criticized by journalists in the Cleveland area who had first-hand knowledge of the trial.
The radio-TV critic of the Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted James B. Flanagan, who had covered the first Sheppard murder trial, as saying that the film "impugned the integrity of one of the finest judges ever to sit on the bench in this nation. Edward Blythin. The noisy scenes in the courtroom absolutely did not happen at any time... Judge Blythin leaned over backward ... to protect the rights of Dr. Sheppard" Mr. Flanagan said the film "was slanted all toward Sam Sheppard. It was completely unfair to the State of Ohio and the memory of Marilyn Sheppard."
Bill Barrett of the Cleveland Press said this: "Spare us more of those 'factually based dramas.' It is apparently impossible to draw drama from truth on TV, and what comes out is a vicious lie like the Sam Sheppard movie - which is regarded forever in Abilene and Sioux City, you can bet, as gospel."
Another trial dramatization that was equally misleading, but which seems to have been accepted as gospel in New York and Washington as well as Abilene, is the CBS production. "Fear on Trial." This was the dramatization of a libel suit brought by one John Henry Faulk, a radio performer, against Aware, a publication that had linked Faulk to a number of Communist-front groups and allegedly caused him to be blacklisted in the broadcasting industry.
It was aired nationwide on October 2. 1975, with extensive promotion by its sponsor, Xerox.
The Faulk case originated when Faulk, Orson Bean, and Charles Coilingwood headed a slate running for office in the television and radio performers' union, AFTRA, with the objective of fighting the blacklisting of performers accused of leftwing connections.
Orson Bean has written that when the slate was formed it was deemed essential that the candidates be completely free of any leftwing taint. The potential candidates were urged to reveal if they had anything in their past of this nature. If they did, they were urged to drop out. Bean himself, confessed to having been involved in a relatively minor incident, but Faulk assured him that it was not serious and urged him to stay on the slate. Faulk himself said nothing about any possible taint in his own background.
The Faulk-Bean-Collingwood slate won the election. Aware came out with an article, which asked, rhetorically, just how anti-communist this slate actually was. It started with Faulk. Bean wrote: "I read with wonder as it went on and on: Johnny at 'Headline Cabaret' sponsored by Stage for Action, officially designated as a Communist front. Johnny appearing with Paul Robeson at the Communist Jefferson School. Johnny sending greetings to "People's Songs", a Red publication. Johnny as U.S. sponsor of the American Continental Congress for Peace in Mexico City. Johnny at "Showtime for Wallace," staged by Progressive Citizens of America, a Communist front."
Bean said that the publication then went on to Bean and Coilingwood, but what they had against them alone would not have been worth printing. But lumped with the list they had on Faulk, he said, "it added up to a grim picture."
Bean said he was dumfounded. He wondered how they could have made up all that stuff about Faulk. He said: "I was sure it couldn't be true or he wouldn't have jeopardized us all by running with us. I ran over to Johnny's office at CBS. 'It isn't true, is it. Johnny? You didn't appear at those places, did you?"
"'Oh honey.' he said. 'What does it matter'? Don't you see those people are fascists? If they didn't have something on us, they'd have made it up.
Faulk, by not revealing his leftwing associations to his fellow candidates in advance, had, according to Bean, placed them all in jeopardy. Faulk elected to sue Aware for libel. Bean tells of speaking to Faulk while the trial was in progress. Faulk told him how his attorney, Lou Nizer, had demolished the defendants. Bean asked: "Was the other side right?" He says Faulk replied: "The point is they didn't prove it. They were sloppy and they were bad detectives, and we're gonna kill 'em."
Accuracy in Media wrote two letters to CBS about "Fear on Trial." The first was sent prior to the widely advertised broadcast and asked whether the background material recounted by Orson Bean in his National Review article of February 23, 1971 would be included in the program. Subsequently we sent another letter that included this paragraph:
"Perhaps the most questionable aspect of the program was the effort to place the entire blame for blacklisting on Harmett (of Aware) and his associates. Bean said in his National Review article: "What if the president of CBS or the heads of casting at the agencies had simply said no on principle? There would have been no blacklist.' I know you are familiar with the description of what CBS did in this area in the Metz book on CBS (CBS, Reflections in a Bloodshot Eye by Robert Metz). He says that CBS required a loyalty oath of its employees and dismissed those who refused to sign. He says that the idea for this oath was approved by Frank Stanton and Edward R. Murrow. The idea, he says, was that of a CBS lawyer, Joseph Ream, not Mr. Harmett."
CBS ducked the hard questions raised by these letters. Vice President E.K. Meade. Jr. responded on October 22 as follows: "In no sense did this program purport to be a news documentary. 'Fear on Trial' was a dramatization of a trial that created much public interest at the time. We regret that you apparently did not like the program."
The important question ducked by CBS was whether this dramatization gave the viewers accurate information about the subject matter. Were the charges that Faulk had leftwing connections true or false? Who was responsible for the blacklisting, those such as Aware who exposed leftwing connections or those officials of the networks and booking agencies who refused to employ the individuals exposed - or the American public, whose disapproval the network executives feared?
Perhaps the most serious omission from this program and from other television discussions of blacklisting that we have seen in recent months is the failure to portray accurately the background, which led to the investigations and exposure of communist infiltration in the entertainment industry in the 1940's and 1950's.
Last fall a play titled "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" played for several weeks at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. This was a dramatization of some portions of the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities on Communist penetration of the movie industry. The play was directed by William Devane, the same man who played the part of John Henry Faulk in the CBS production. "Fear on Trial." The object of the play was similar to the object of "Fear on Trial" - to make us feel ashamed of the way we once mistreated people accused of being communists or communist sympathizers.
What was missing was the same thing that was missing from "Fear on Trial," any effort to provide the background that would have placed the investigations in proper historical context.
AIM prepared a 16-page pamphlet which was distributed to those attending "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?" the first night it played in Washington and on a couple of other nights. It provided the historical background that was lacking in the play itself. Our soundings indicated that the pamphlet had a significant impact on many of those who attended. A young lawyer told us it had opened his eyes and stimulated him to try to learn more about that era. A prominent young actress carried the pamphlet with her to England and wrote about it in a letter to one of her friends in the U.S.
Since there is so much discussion in the media these days of "blacklisting" we have decided to reproduce here a portion of this pamphlet for your information. It may be of value to you in any efforts you may make to set the record straight.
Most of the people who will see this play will have little or no memory of the turbulent 'thirties'. But it is impossible to adequately appreciate the events depicted in this dramatic presentation without some understanding of the factual historic background .... The most important element of the context that is missing is some idea of what the Communist Party was doing in Hollywood . . . We cannot provide an exhaustive record, but we have put together some material that will be of interest to you.
I. PROPAGANDIZING THROUGH THE MOVIES
The communists were interested in Hollywood in part because they recognized that movies could be a tremendous propaganda instrument, for or against communism. A number of pro-communist pictures were made. For example, "Mission to Moscow," with its apology for Stalin's purge trials, was a great help to the Communist Party because it helped deceive the public about one of the historical events that had troubled many Americans who were favorable disposed toward Stalin.
In an article in the Communist Party paper, The Worker, of May 5, l946, Dalton Trumbo, one of the "Hollywood Ten." explained that keeping movies from being made was also an important achievement. He said:
"We have produced a few fine films in Hollywood, a great many of which were vulgar and opportunistic and a few downright vicious. If you tell me Hollywood, in contrast with the novel and the theater, has produced nothing so provocative or so progressive as "Freedom Road" or "Deep Are the Roots." I will grant you the point, but I may also add that neither has Hollywood produced anything so untrue or so reactionary as "The Yogi and the Commissar," "Out of the Night," "Report on the Russians," "There Shall Be No Night," or "Adventure of a Young Man." Nor does Hollywood's forthcoming schedule include such tempting items as James T. Farrell's "Bernard Clare." Victor Kravchenko's "I Chose Freedom," or the so-called biography of Stalin, by Leon Trotsky."
The filming of the books listed by Trumbo would have been a devastating blow to the communists. They were revelations about Stalin's tyranny, by authors whose personal experience gave them high credibility.
These books had opened the eyes of many a naive fellow traveler, causing the communists much pain. A good movie about any one of them would have greatly hastened the enlightenment of the American public about Stalin. It was important that such movies be suppressed. As Trumbo proudly pointed out, they were never made.
The communists sought to obtain control of the levers of power in Hollywood and in the world of the theater. Some of the fiercest battles were fought in the unions. Many stories could be told of the tactics, including physical violence, employed in this struggle. One moving account was provided by a former party member, Rena Vale, in 1943 in an affidavit submitted to a committee of the California Legislature. She said:
"...I wish to cite an instance typical of the manner in which the Communist Party retains control of unions; F.A., a member of tile publicity staff of the Federal Theatre Project, took an active part in the organization of this union, but she opposed the election of F.F. as president. Inasmuch as he was the Communist Party choice it was necessary for every communist to put forth all effort to elect him and to elevate him in prestige with the project workers. Therefore. F.A.'s opposition was given serious consideration by the Communist Party's fraction. It was the fraction decision, and therefore binding upon every Communist Party member in that union, to utilize a process of discrediting her in the eyes of all project coworkers, and the community at large. The communists announced by decision of said fraction, that they would 'isolate, expose and expel' F.A. as an 'enemy of the working class.'
"A plan of malicious gossip was devised. We communists were to tell everyone who would listen that F.A. was 'mentally and emotionally' unstable, that she was a sexual pervert, and that she was in the pay of the Merchants and Manufacturers' Association.' As planned, our gossip brought her near the point of nervous collapse. Other communist forces caused her dismissal from her position on the project, and with each outbreak of hers against what she felt to be injustice, we derided her for 'hysteria,' until at last few project workers would listen to her stories...
"...this fiendish calculation to destroy the reputation, the mind and the ability of a person to make a living revolted me and preyed upon my mind, and I remonstrated privately with L.M. for instigating, sanctioning and even compelling other Communist Party members to indulge in that inhuman practice. L.M. merely laughed at me and stated, 'We must destroy our enemies by whatever method we can. We must regard a lie as a tactical maneuver.' She went on to state that according to official teachings of the Communist Party, that Communist work was to be conducted as war, and that 'all was fair in war.'"
Not only did the communists provoke nervous breakdowns by the tactics described above, but they resorted to physical violence - and to blacklisting.
With all the publicity, given to the troubles and tribulations of the "Hollywood Ten" the impression has been created that they were the only ones who suffered. What is little known is that actors, writers and directors who opposed the communists suffered from the unpublicized blacklisting by the communists. Topflight writers such as Morrie Ryskind suddenly found that they were no longer in demand after they testified about the communist machinations in the film industry. The "Ten" were often able to get work simply by using pseudonyms. Ryskind and those like him could not get around the communist blacklist by such a simple stratagem.
Eugene Lyons, one of the first journalists to suffer disillusionment with Stalin's great experiment as a result of his "assignment in utopia" in the early days of the Revolution, has written about how the Revolution came to Hollywood in The Red Decade.
In our pamphlet we reprinted the chapter from Eugene Lyons book, which described communist infiltration in Hollywood and Broadway. We won't reprint this chapter here, but the book has recently been reprinted and is available from Arlington House, New Rochelle, and N.Y.
Keep this issue of the AIM Report on file. The next time you encounter a discussion in the media of the bad old days of blacklisting that fails to put the matter in context, present the facts and ask that they be told. NBC is said to be preparing a documentary, or drama on this subject called "Witch Hunt." You may wish to write to the president of NBC to suggest that he see that the presentation is balanced. His name and address: Herbert Schlosser, President, NBC, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, and New York, N.Y. 10020.
AIM Report NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF
MISLEADING HEADLINES
Accuracy in Media is frequently asked if something can't be done about misleading headlines in newspapers. This can be a serious problem. Many readers are headline skimmers, glancing at the headlines and perhaps at the first paragraph or two of the story. Headlines that do not accurately reflect the content of the story can misinform a great many people.
The best remedy for misleading headlines is to protest to the editor when one finds a specific example. This sometimes gets results - and sometimes not. We will give you a couple of examples from the country's most prestigious paper, The New York Times.
On November 30. 1975, The Times carried an article in the Travel Section headed: "Hiking in Puerto Rico: I woke With a Gun Barrel in my Face." It sounds pretty alarming. Was it bandits? Guerrillas? Or perhaps an overly officious gendarme?
The answer is none of these. The story was mostly about the pleasures and difficulties of hiking in Puerto Rico. It described the lovely scenery and the interesting people encountered. It went on for four full columns. Near the end, the author described sleeping in what turned out to be a National Guard training area. When he awoke the next morning he found he was in the middle of a war game, and he was surrounded by soldiers who thought he was the enemy!
A well-known Puerto Rican, Jose Ferrer, wrote to The Times to protest the headline. He pointed out that it did not reflect either the spirit or the basic content of the article. He thought it was pretty irresponsible journalism, especially at the present time when our relations with Puerto Rico require careful handling.
The Times promptly published Mr. Ferrer's letter and appended a note conceding that his criticism was valid.
Accuracy in Media has been less successful in its efforts to get The Times to correct a misleading headline published on December 10, which read: "Ozone Peril Seen by E.P.A. Report."
The reader might conclude from the headline that this was a story about a report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, which confirmed changes that certain chemical emissions are damaging the ozone shield in the upper atmosphere.
The reader had to follow the story as far as the eleventh paragraph to find that the report prepared for the E.P.A. made no attempt to evaluate the evidence for the ozone depletion theory. Indeed, it pointed out that most scientists agreed that there were important uncertainties about this theory and said that further work and analysis would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn.
So what was the report about? It was confined to estimation of fluorocarbon production and emissions in the world and to an appraisal of the economic impact of efforts to curb production and emissions of these chemicals if this should be found to be advisable.
In this case the headline came close to saying just the opposite of what the story said about the report. The fault was compounded by the badly written story, which did not accurately describe the report in the lead paragraphs.
The Times has not denied that the headline was misleading, but as we go to press, it still has not printed a correction.
THE GODS OF ANTENNA
One of the most articulate critics of the news media, Bruce Herschensohn, has just published a hard-hitting book that exposes the techniques used by our national news media, especially television, to manipulate and distort the news.
The book is titled The Gods of Antenna; a term Herschensohn uses to describe a powerful new institution, not envisioned by the constitution, and not subject to popular vote, that is playing a major role in determining our fate. The "gods" run our television networks. They are abetted by a radicalized film establishment and important elements in the national print media.
Bruce Herschensohn is an expert in the art of filmmaking who lost his job with the U.S. Information Agency during the Vietnam War because he had the temerity to criticize Senator J. William Fulbright. He served as a White House aide in the Nixon administration for several years. He is an expert media watcher, who knows the tricks of the trade.
His book is a documented account of the dirty tricks employed by the "gods" in their effort to undermine our war effort in Vietnam and bring down the Nixon administration. He lists 26 ways in which the newscasters manipulate the news, with actual examples for each technique. This chapter is worth the price of the book ($7.95), because it will enable you to recognize these tricks as you watch the evening news on the tube. You will be better equipped to join the ranks of the skilled and informed lay critics who are pitching in to fight media distortion.
Herschensohn gives due credit to the work of Accuracy in Media, and he has used some of our material. AIM supporters will like his book, and we are going to send a free copy to those of you who contribute $15 or more to AIM. Use the coupon on page 7.
To: AIM, 777 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005By all means keep my AIM Report coming. Enclosed is
( ) $15 for my subscription renewal
( ) My tax-deductible contribution of S100 $50 $25 $15 $lO Other_____
(If you send a contribution of $15 or more we will send you FREE a copy of Bruce Herschensohn's fine new book, The Gods of Antenna).
Name_____________________________________________________________________________
Address__________________________________________________________________________
City, State and zip______________________________________________________________
WOULD YOU MISS THE AIM REPORT?
Our spirits are greatly buoyed up by the enthusiastic letters we get from our AIM supporters, many of whom tell us how much they look forward to getting the AIM Report each month. We hope that everyone who gets the Report feels that way. But there are a good many of you on our mailing list who are getting the Report because someone sometime in the past gave you a gift subscription. Many of those subscriptions have not been renewed. We can't go on sending you the AIM Report each month unless you or the original donor renews the subscription.
And so if you would miss the AIM Report, make sure you continue to get it by sending a contribution or payment for your subscription today.
AIM CHAIRMAN HONORED BY U.S. CITIZENS CONGRESS
Reed Irvine, Chairman of the Board of Accuracy in Media, was among those honored at the "Salute to Leadership" Dinner given by the United States Citizens Congress at the Shoreham Americana Hotel in Washington, D.C. on December 14.
Other honorees included Secretary of the Treasury William E. Simon, Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska, and Mrs. Herbert S. Stein. Each of the recipients of the awards was presented with a beautifully engrossed scroll signed by Rabbi Baruch Korff, President of the U.S.C.C., and Admiral Elliott B. Strauss, Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Irvine's scroll, presented by author and columnist Ralph de Toledano, read: "With conscience and vigilance, Reed Irvine has focussed an unerring light on the ideological bias of the press, both printed and electronic. His pioneering effort, though it has been under heavy attack, has helped to alert Americans and to proclaim a Bicentennial message that to preserve its freedoms a nation must have a free and impartial press. In the spirit of Thomas Paine, he has challenged the tyranny of the twisted word and encouraged others to speak out for journalistic decency."
The U.S.C.C., which is headquartered at 1221 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., has issued an 8-point Bicentennial Manifesto, which includes a demand for "self-discipline and a rigorous code of ethics in the media which will protect the public from bias, misrepresentation, and the erosion of national confidence."
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1976
The New York TimesPeking's Food Output: Overoptimistic Forecast
To the Editor:
In his Op-Ed page article of Dec. 26, Neville Maxwell projects a huge surge in China's food production over the next several years. He sees the possibility of the mainland achieving food grain output of 350 million tons before 1980. Mr. Maxwell might have noted that back in 1958 Peking proudly announced that food-grain production had reached 375 million tons. That was pared back very substantially, and it is generally believed now that output in 1958 did not exceed 215 million tons, which was still a bumper crop. If Mr. Maxwell's informants are correct and production in 1974 reached 275 million tons, another bumper crop, we can calculate that the average annual increase in output from 1958 to 1974 was 1.5 per cent. Since population is estimated to increase about 2 per cent a year, that growth rate for food output is hardly anything to write home about. Mr. Maxwell gets much more impressive growth rates by calculating the rates from 1970 and 1971 to 1974. It is very hazardous to base long-term predictions on rates calculated over such a short span. Mr. Maxwell will have to produce better evidence than the good results of one or two years to make a convincing case that the long-term growth rate has turned sharply upward. That was the lesson many optimists learned back in 1958. Mr. Maxwell talks about gains resulting from irrigation, improved drainage, mechanization and increased use of fertilizer. Chinese grain yields are relatively low, and output could probably be greatly increased by far greater fertilization. It is doubtful that any relatively change is going to come from irrigation, drainage and mechanization. They have long been working on irrigation, and mechanization is going to proceed rather slowly. Maxwell does not report that the use of chemical fertilizers is surging ahead. He says they are coming steadily into greater use, and they are still only a supplement to organic fertilizers. Mr. Maxwell's optimism does not appear to rest on a solid foundation.
REED J. IRVINE - Chairman, Accuracy In Media, Inc. Washington, Jan. 1, 1976
CHANGING YOUR ADDRESS
Please notify us. You can help us make the change accurately by sending the address label from this AIM Report along with your new address. The ALM Report is published monthly by Accuracy in Media, Inc. Reed Irvine, Chairman; Francis G. Wilson, President; John R. Van Evera, Executive Secretary. Subscriptions are $15.00 a year. Contributions are tax-deductible.AIM REPORT Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage 1/76 PAID Wash., D.C. Permit NO. 44478
Accuracy, in Media Inc. 777 14th Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20005 (Address Correction Requested) (P.S. Form 3579)