Reed Irvine - Editor
Senator Edward M. Kennedy's extra ordinal; grip on much of the news media of this country was demonstrated again in the coverage of the tenth anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. On the night of June 18, 1969, Kennedy drove his car onto a narrow bridge on Chappaquiddick Island at such a speed that it flipped over the foot-high guard timbers and landed upside down in eight feet of water in Poucha Pond. Kennedy somehow managed to extricate himself and save his own life. But he left in the car a pretty young girl, Mary Jo Kopechne, who was found there dead the next morning. The coroner attributed her death to drowning, but the undertaker said that there was only half a teacup of water in her lungs. He said that victims of drowning are filled with water. John Farrar, the scuba diver who pulled Miss Kopechne's body from the car, said that her position indicated that she had lived for several hours breathing air that was trapped in the foot well. Both he and the undertaker believe that she died of suffocation as the oxygen in the trapped air was exhausted.
If that was what happened, Mary Jo Kopechne's life could have been saved had professional help been summoned immediately after the accident? That was not done. Kennedy and his friends did not even report the accident until after some fishermen, who called the police, had spotted the car in the water the next morning.
Robert Shetrill in his book, The Last Kennedy, raises the question of whether Mary lo could have been saved, saying: "The horrible vision raised by this question is that of Miss Kopechne staying alive for some time, breathing within an air bubble collected in the foot well of the back seat, terrified by the water and the blackness around her, holding onto the seat so hard that her hands ached, and gasping the slowly diminishing air as she prayed for someone to come help her--while Kennedy (by his own admission) lay on the bank of the pond nearby feeling sorry for himself, or intermittently mucking around with his amateur heroics. One can expand the nightmare to her hanging on for hours, slowly dying of terror and asphyxiation, while Kennedy tossed and turned on his bed in the Shire town Inn and grumbled about the noises from the party next door, worrying about his own comfort and his political future."
John Farrar believes that Mary Jo Kopechne lived through this agony for three or four hours. He has said that he could have had her out of the car twenty-five minutes after he got the call, but the call did not come until 8:25 A.M., more than eight hours after the car plunged over the bridge. Senator Kennedy did not report the accident until 10:00 A.M., long after the body had been recovered.
Robert Shetrill writes: "The Chappaquiddick cover- up undoubtedly the most brilliant cover-up ever achieved in a nation where investigative procedures are well developed and where the principles of equal justice prevail at least during some of those moments when people are watching." He notes that Kennedy's attorneys 'manipulated everything and everyone-- federal, state, and local officials, the press, the public, his friends, and events themselves--in a most remarkable way."
By comparison, the Watergate cover-up was an amateurish, botched job. The Kennedy crowd removed not only all the evidence of their evening on Chappaquiddick, including numerous empty liquor bottles, but they quickly removed all the most important witnesses and even the corpse of Mary Jo Kopechne before an autopsy could be performed.
It is known that in addition to Kennedy at least four married men and six unmarried girls participated in the party that preceded the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Except for Kennedy, only one of these has submitted to a press interview. The two who knew the most about what transpired, Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, have "stone-walled the press with an adamancy that surely must make John Mitchell gray and dyspeptic with envy," to quote Robert Sherrill. Sherrill says that even generous offers of payment of as much as $50,000 to get one of the insiders to tell the true story of what transpired that evening have failed to get any of this group to talk.
The police never interrogated them. and Kennedy himself was treated with such deference by the Massachusetts authorities that contradictions and patent lies went unchallenged.
There are many questions about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne that have never been satisfactorily answered. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Kopechne, the parents of Mary is, say that they have never been told the whole story. The five young ladies at the party who were Mary Jo's friends have never spoken to them about the events of that night. They feel that the authorities handled the investigation very poorly, failing to probe deeply into what had actually transpired.
Here are some of the questions that Senator Kennedy should answer.
1. Anyone who has driven along the paved main road on Chappaquiddick toward the ferry and who has made the sharp right turn onto the rough dirt road leading to Dyke Bridge where the accident occurred knows immediately that he has made a wrong turn. It is impossible to believe that you could have driven three-quarters of a mile along that road to the bridge without realizing that you were not on the road to the ferry. There are numerous places to turn around before you reach the bridge. Were your faculties so impaired that you could drive three-quarters of a mile on a bumpy dirt road without realizing that you had left the paved highway?
2. Deputy Sheriff [now Sheriff] Christopher Look says that he saw an Oldsmobile with Massachusetts tags beginning with L7 and ending with 7 turn down Dyke Road off the main highway at 12:45 A.M., an hour and a half after you say that you left the party to drive Mary Jo Kopechne to her motel on Martha's Vineyard. That fits the description of your car. You claim that you left the party at 11:15 P.M. and ran off the bridge a few minutes thereafter. Since there is good reason to doubt your truthfulness about why you turned onto Dyke Road and continued on it for three- quarters of a mile, is there any reason why we should not believe Mr. Look rather than you with respect to the time you took that turn?
3. Is it not true that you cannot admit having been seen by Deputy Sheriff Look making that turn at 12:45 A.M. because that would destroy your claim to having spent some time trying to rescue Mary Jo and to having later come with Gargan and Markham to make a further rescue attempt, efforts that consumed over one hour, according to your estimates?
4. You have said that Mary Jo was alive and struggling when the car first submerged, and you have said that you made efforts to rescue her. Rather than waste a valuable half hour returning to the cottage where your friends were partying to get their help, why did you not go to the house just a few minutes away from the bridge where a telephone call could have brought expert help that might have saved Mary Jo's life? Did you reject this obvious move because you harbored some hope that in some way you might escape involvement in the accident?
5. You have said that you did not report the accident to the police because you were confused and beset with irrational thoughts, but the telephone records show that you made some 17 long-distance phone calls that night and the next morning. You have admitted that you tried to reach your friend Burke Marshall by phone. To whom were all the other calls placed and what did you discuss with them?
6. Why did you claim to have swum the channel back to Martha's Vineyard, a dangerous thing to do for a man in your condition, when there is good reason to believe that you made the trip in Thor Ramsey's boat?
7. Were you advised by your friends and attorneys to delay reporting the accident long enough for' the alcohol you had drunk the night before to work its way out of your system?
8. Why did you arrange to have Mary Jo Kopechne's body removed from Martha's Vineyard before an autopsy was performed? Was there some reason why you did not want an autopsy, e.g. did you have reason to fear that it might be revealed that she was pregnant or that she died from causes other than drowning? Why didn't you insist on an autopsy in order to allay suspicions?
9. Did you use your influence with the late Cardinal Cushing to get him to persuade Mr., and Mrs. Kopechne to oppose the efforts of the State of Massachusetts to have the body of their daughter exhumed so that an autopsy could be performed?
10. Would you publicly announce that since you have nothing to hide, you would not object if any or all of those who attended the party the night Mary Jo died were to speak freely to the press about the events of that night or accept any offers they may have had to write about the subject.
These are only a few of the many questions that should be asked of Senator Kennedy about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. But at a time when the Senator is again being pushed as a presidential candidate and is scoring high in the polls, much of the media show little or no interest in asking him tough questions.
On July 17, Senator Kennedy gave an interview to correspondents for The New York Times, the Boston Globe, CBS and ABC. The New York Times reported, "Mr. Kennedy agreed to be interviewed with the proviso that he and his staff would have an opportunity to review the questions in advance and that no electronic recording be made of his remarks."
David Jones, national news editor of The New York Times, admitted that this was unusual, but he justified accepting Kennedy's terms. He said, "When we want an interview, we try to obtain an interview." He added, "We want to do what is in our best interest." Submitting questions in advance and relinquishing the right to ask follow-up questions may be a good way to set a story, but it is not too likely to be effective in ferretins out the truth in a case of this type. What the Times got was a rehash by Kennedy of what he had previously said about the case. He did give an explanation for one discrepancy between what he told the police and what he told the television audience a few days later. He said that he had not told the police about coming back to the scene of the accident with his friends, Gargan and Markham, to try to rescue Mary Jo because he had not wanted them to assume any responsibility, either for the accident, or for reporting it later. He said that he had told them not to report the accident, that he would do it. He also denied having any discussion with his aides about agreeing on a cover story for the accident. He said the discussions were "about reporting the accident," something that he neglected to do for many hours.
Five years ago, the Times published Robert Sherrill's devastating article, "Chappaquiddick Plus 5." This exposure of the flaws in Kennedy's story was influential in his decision to take himself out of consideration for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 1976. The article was subsequently expanded into a book, The Last Kennedy. Sherrill has done an article for the tenth anniversary called "Chappaquiddick Plus 10," which has appeared in some papers around the country--but not in The New York Times. The Times did interview Mr. and Mrs. Kopechne, reporting that they did not feel that they had been told the whole story of the death of their daughter.
The Washington Past noted the anniversary with two articles. One was a short UPI story carried on page 2 which reported on a CBS interview with Kennedy. He was quoted as saying that he had behaved irresponsibly, but that people should judge him on his entire record, not just Chappaquiddick. This story reported incorrectly that Kennedy had been tried and acquitted in the death of Kopechne. The Post ran a correction the following day, pointing out that Kennedy had pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. The Post did not remind its readers that the judge who presided at the inquest concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Kennedy had operated his motor vehicle negligently. The second story was about The New York Times agreeing to submit questions to Kennedy in advance.
The Washington Star ran a severely edited version of The New York Times story on its interview with Kennedy, not mentioning that the questions had been submitted in advance. It also ran a column by Germond and Witcover, which argued that Chappaquiddick was bound to be a significant issue if Kennedy were to run for president.
All three-television networks ran portions of interviews with Kennedy, but none brought out any new information to clarify Kennedy's conduct.
The Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Service
A highly revealing indicator of the timidity and protectiveness of the media when it comes to Edward Kennedy is found in the treatment of the memorial service for Mary Jo Kopechne that was held at Ghappaquiddick on July 19. The Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Society sought to advertise the memorial service in a number of papers around the country. The society asked the papers to carry this ad in their "In Memoriam" columns: "Kopechne, Mary Jo--Your tragic death at Ghappaquiddick in an accident that went unreported by Senator Edward Kennedy for 10 hours, while you gasped for breath in his car at the bottom of Poucha Pond, will never be forgotten. Memorial service will be held at the site of your death on July 19, 1979 at 12 noon."
The Boston Herald-American refused to carry the announcement. The Boston Globe at first bridled, but then said it would carry the ad if it were supplied with detailed information about the society, its member- ship and its purposes. It finally agreed to run the ad after the society threatened to take the matter up with the publisher. The Washington Post agreed to run the ad if all references to Senator Kennedy and the manner of Miss Kopechne's death were eliminated. The Washington Star took the same approach. The same shortened version of the ad was submitted to The New York Times and was accepted without question. The Philadelphia Bulletin and the Poughkeepsie Journal accepted the full ad.
The society tried to place a display ad inviting people to attend the memorial service in The Vineyard Gazette, a paper that serves the area where the service was to be held. This ad was accepted over the telephone, but it was not run in the paper. The society was informed that the publisher did not think the ad was in keeping with the purposes of the paper. The owner of The Vineyard Gazette is James Reston, who as a columnist for The New York Times has frequently pontificated on the importance of freedom of the press. Needless to say, The Vineyard Gazette did not announce the service as a news item either.
However, the wire services announced the event, and it was mentioned on television, radio, and in many newspapers around the country. The service at Dyke Bridge was well attended despite the lack of cooperation from The Vineyard Gazette. The Rev. Lester Kinsolving delivered a powerful sermon, "Should We Forget About Chappaquiddick?" An historical marker detailing the discovery of the body of Mary Jo Kopechne in Senator Kennedy's car at the bottom of Poucha Pond on the morning of July 19, 1969 was unveiled, and a wreath was tossed from the bridge onto the water by Frank Fusco, a Poughkeepsie businessman, who, together with Wilson G. Lucom of Palm Beach, Florida, organized the society. Mr. Lucom, who is also president of Goncerned Voters, issued a press release announcing the results of a poll his organization had taken. This showed that 69% of those polled said that they would attach great or considerable importance to information that a candidate for the presidency had panicked in a grave emergency. He said that while his poll was very limited, it indicated that voter response to the issues raised by Chappaquiddick depended a lot on how the question was phrased.
The Boston Globe, Poughkeepsie Journal, and Philadelphia Inquirer ran stories about this event by their own correspondents. Many other papers around the country ran wire service stories or photos. The Canadian Broadcasting Co. filmed the service and presumably televised some portion of it. But the Washington-New York media access blacked it out completely. The Washington Post had two reporters present who were very active in interviewing participants, but they had decided before they left the site that they would recommend that The Post not run any story about the service. Thus The Washington Post maintained its record of service to Senator Kennedy virtually unblemished.
While polls indicate that a high percentage of those polled say that they remember what happened at Chappaquiddick ten years ago, there is good reason to believe that memories have dimmed about the "irresponsible and inexplicable" conduct of Teddy Kennedy, to use his own adjectives. Some media used the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne to publish informative articles such as Robert Sherrills's "Chappaquiddick Plus 10."
Others, such as The Washington Post, said little or nothing about it. If the paper you read was one of the former, write to the editor to commend it. If it was one of the latter, write to suggest that the media should be pressing Senator Kennedy to respond to those unanswered questions.
The New York Times reported July 13 that the Afghan regime, led by Soviet puppet Mohammed Taraki, is in serious trouble. "Afghanistan's army of 100,000 is gradually crumbling under pressure from anti- communist rebels in all the country's 28 provinces..." the Times said.
The countryside is almost entirely controlled by the insurgents, the Times reported, and the communist hold on the cities appears "increasingly tenuous."
Tons of military equipment and thousands of "advisers" have been sent by the Soviets into the country to bolster the Taraki regime. But, according to the Times, the Army's morale and discipline is low, and defections to the rebel cause are widespread.
The average, sensible American might expect the U.S. Government to hail the collapse of this Soviet client state. Indeed, many of us would even expect our government to supply arms to the anti-communist rebels to hasten the regime's downfall.
Incredibly, however, the State Department is mum. At the July 13 press briefing, State Department spokesman Hodding Carter refused to comment on the record about the situation there.
The following dialogue, between AIM chairman Reed Irvine and Mr. Carter, took place.
Irvine: Could you tell us on record if the State Department would welcome.., the crumbling of the Taraki regime and its army and their overthrow?
Carter: I don't think I have much observation to make on the record about the internal affairs of a sovereign regime.
Irvine: Well, Hodding, in view of our intense interest in destabilizing our ally in Nicaragua, do you see any inconsistency between the lack of interest in a government that has collaborated in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and anti-U.S, activities?
Carter: Our interest in Nicaragua is to stabilize the situation and end the civil war for reasons, which have to do with the people there. And I don't have any comment to make whatsoever on the Afghanistan situation...
Irvine: It's a totally different situation? We don't have any interest in destabilizing Taraki? Is that what you're saying?
Carter: I don't have any comment on that...
This brief exchange exposed for all to see the glaring inconsistency in the policy of our State Department toward communist governments and anti-communist governments. In the case of Afghanistan. A communist regime that had seized power in a bloody coup is under heavy attack from within. The Soviets have poured in arms to shore up their puppet, but the regime lacks any genuine support in the country and is on the verge of defeat. In this case, our State Department assumes such a hands-off policy that it even refuses to say whether or not it would welcome the collapse of the Soviet-supported dictatorship.
On the other hand, in Nicaragua, where a government long allied with this country came under attack from invaders trained and supplied by Cuba and the Palestine Liberation Organization, our State Department publicly declared that it wanted our ally ousted. It cut off all arms and other aid to the friendly government, and did its best to conceal the fact that the invaders were being supported and supplied by Cuba.
One could not hope for a clearer demonstration of the contrast between the Carter Administration policy of speaking softly to communist dictatorships and wielding a big stick against the few strongly anticommunist friends that we have left in the so-called "third world."
But the many Big Media reporters who attended that briefing and observed the expose of this incredible policy showed not the least interest in raising questions about it. Nor were they interested in reporting to their readers and viewers that their government is now so intimidated or infiltrated that it is unwilling to say whether or not it would welcome the overthrow of a bloody communist dictatorship.
We have had printed an attractively bound index for the AIM Report covering the years 1972 through 1978. Miss Elizabeth Mudge of New London, New Hampshire compiled the index on a volunteer basis. Miss Mudge had no previous experience in indexing, but she has done a remarkable job. For those who have saved their AIM Reports, this will be a very valuable tool. Even if you don't have all the back copies, you will find it useful for the years that you have. Moreover, you may well find articles listed in the index that you would want to obtain by ordering back copies of those particular issues. If you would like to have a copy of this fine index, we will be happy to send you one for $3.00 plus 50 cents for postage and handling. Just send your name and address and "index" on a note, together with your payment.
SUPPLEMENT AIM Report August I 1979, NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF By Reed Irvine
THE LEAD STORY IN THIS AIM REPORT CENTERS AROUND THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE 10th anniversary of the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick. One of the outstanding aspects of this whole affair has been the success of the cover-up by Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Despite the glaring inconsistencies and improbabilities in his story, he has successfully "stonewalled" for an entire decade. Now we see the disgraceful spectacle of a number of our leading media organizations submitting questions to Kennedy in advance in order to get a 10th anniversary story. This makes a mockery of the "new morality" that was supposed to have been the fruit of Watergate. The press was supposed to have become less willing to accept lies and evasions. The journalists were supposed to have sharpened their investigative talents and drive, permitting no stone to go unturned in their effort to get at the truth.
WHAT WE HAVE JUST SEEN IN THE MEDIA INTERVIEWS WITH SENATOR KENNEDY ON THE Chappaquiddick matter is not investigative reporting. Actually, the reporters were playing Kennedy's game. The fact that these interviews were not wrung out of a reluctant Kennedy is evident from this exchange between Tom Brokaw and John Hart on the NBC "Today Show" on July 19, when they showed Hart's interview with Kennedy.
Brokaw: John, it seems to me that all Of this talk, all of the Senator coming out on Chappaquiddick is bound to just fuel speculation that he's clearing the deck, so to speak, getting ready to run for President in 1980.
Hart: Well, you know, Tom, when he first agreed to do the interview, I said to myself, "He's running." And we talked yesterday afternoon, I brought up the fact that he'd given a number of interviews and was talking a great deal about it. The answer was what you might expect: "Well, I'm saying these things because you asked me it is the 10th anniversary."
THIS BEARS OUT THE SUSPICION VOICED BY SOME WASHINGTON OBSERVERS THAT KENNEDY has decided that the best way to defuse the Chappaquiddick issue in advance is to appear to be willing to talk about it. Submitting to interviews where the questions have been approved in advance or where he need not fear that he will be intensively grilled, Kennedy is in the process of "talking the issue out." Having given inter- views to ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and The Boston Globe, he is now in a position to say that he has answered all the questions the press has thrown at him and he should now be permitted to put Chappaquiddick behind him.
BUT AS WE POINT OUT IN THIS ISSUE, THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN unanswered. The recent series of interview did not provide any new information. NBC's John Hart admitted this after the interview was shown on the Today Show, saying: "So he isn't saying anything, Tom, really that he hasn't said over the last ten years or didn't say ten years ago." Despite that, the only unanswered question that John Hart mentioned as a remaining mystery was how Kennedy managed to escape from the car. Not how he could have driven three-quarters of a mile down a bumpy dirt road, thinking he was on a paved highway. Not how Deputy Sheriff Look could have seen his car turn down that road at 12:45 A.M. when the senator had said he had driven the car into the drink an hour and a half earlier. Not what motivated him to refrain from going to the nearest house to get help immediately, help that could have saved Mary Jo's life. Not why there was so much haste to get the corpse out of Massachusetts. Not why he made 17 long distance phone calls after the accident during the period he claimed to have been in such a state of shock that he could not notify the police that a young lady was trapped in his car at the bottom of Poucha Pond.
NONE OF THESE FEARSOME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS THOUGHT TO ASK SENATOR KENNEDY if he would be willing to take a lie detector test. None thought to ask him if he would instruct everyone else who attended that party that they should feel free to talk to the press and tell what they knew about the incident. Since Senator Kennedy is widely believed to have lied about his actions, and since the lips of all his friends have been tightly sealed, why shouldn't he prove his claimed truthfulness by telling his story while hooked up to a polygraph? Why shouldn't he urge his friends to tell all--giving them a chance to make a little spending money in the process? When he does that perhaps it will be time to say that Chappaquiddick is behind him. But not before.
THE LAST KENNEDY BY ROBERT SHERRILL IS AN EXCELLENT BOOK ON CHAPPAQUIDDICK. WE have quoted from it in this AIM Report, and for those who are interested in this sub- ject, I recommend that you read the whole book. It was published at $8.95, but we will sell it to AIM members for only $2.95, post paid. At this bargain price, you can afford to order copies for your friends, especially the younger folk who don't know what happened at Chappaquiddick. This is an especially good book because Robert. Sherrill is a certified liberal. He is Washington correspondent for the Nation. If you would like to order this book, just write your name and address and the title of the book on a piece of paper and send it with your check for $2.95 to AIM. Order your index to the AIM Report at the same time. (See the box on page 4 of this issue).
MANY OF YOU HAVE WRITTEN TO NBC ABOUT THEIR DISTORTED REPORTING ON NUCLEAR POWER in response to our suggestions. NBC has been responding with individually typed form letters, which charge AIM with being inaccurate, misleading, and distorting. Rather than write to each of you who has sent us copies of these letters, I will set the record straight here.
ALBERT R. KROEGER, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS FOR NBC, HAS WRITTEN TO those who wrote to Peter G. Peterson or John Sawhill, directors of RCA, in response to our suggestion in the May II 1979 AIM Report article, "RCA Head Makes an Amazing Admission." Mr. Kroeger said in his letter: "By choosing to distort a March 8 "Today" segment on nuclear energy, Mr. Irvine has sought to create a spurious issue over the alleged risk of nuclear explosion." On July 13, I wrote to Mr. Kroeger requesting that he spell out just how my description of that "Today" segment was distorted. I said that if he could demonstrate distortion I would report it in the AIM Report and apologize to NBC. Having received no reply from Mr. Kroeger by July 24, I called him. He said that my letter had not reached him until the 20th and he had not had time to prepare a reply. I pointed out that he must have known what my distortion was when he wrote those letters. Could he explain it to me over the phone? I read what I had written in the AIM Report. Mr. Kroeger said that he could not answer over the phone and that he would be replying by mail. It is my impression that having mindlessly made the charge, Mr. Kroeger will now try to figure out how to back it up. I'll keep you posted.
ROBERT O'NEIL, ADMINISTRATOR OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS FOR NBC, HAS RESPONDED to letters to RCA President E. H. Griffiths about the NBC News reporting on the 19 dead cows near Three Mile Island. (See "NBC's Nuclear Bull," June II 1979 AIM Report). Mr. O'Neil says that we gave "an inaccurate and misleading impression of NBC reporting on this matter." Well, we did make one mistake. We said that the last we heard of this story on NBC News was the report on May 19. We later learned that NBC had aired a second report on the dead cows the following night, adding to the fears. Once more we were told that so farther was no evidence linking the deaths with the TMI accident, but that suspicion was obviously the only reason why NBC was reporting the death of cows on the national news. So we had two scare stories, not one. What we had no way of knowing was that NBC on May 26 NBC prepared a report saying that the cow deaths had nothing to do with radiation from TMI. It wasn't aired in the eastern half of the country because a baseball game ran overtime and the news was cut.