Leaksmanship

Both the Kennedy Administration and Adlai Stevenson have been severely damaged by a recent article in the Saturday Evening Post. Perhaps neither will ever recover completely. The article, written by Stewart Alsop and Charles Bartlett, has inspired innumerable rumors, opinions and theories on Adlai Stevenson's role in the recent Cuban crisis and his career prospects. Yet several well-defined issues emerge from this melee: freedom of Presidential advisers from disclosure and misrepresentation of their advice, the responsibility of the President towards those advisers, and the ruinous irresponsibility of reporters Alsop and Bartlett.

In their article, In Time of Crisis, Alsop and Bartlett claim to give the public an inside scoop on the high-level deliberations which led to key decisions during the crisis. Their facts are wrong and their interpretations are grossly oversimplified, but worst of all they discuss the supposedly confidential positions taken by Stevenson and others at National Security Council meetings. The article quotes an anonymous official as saying: "Adlai wanted a Munich.... He wanted to trade Turkish and British missile bases for Cuban bases."

Disclosures such as this, correct or incorrect, could soon stifle the free flow of advice and opinion within the government. Although the press must inform the public of what is going on in Washington, National Security Council meetings should be free from its probes. No high government official can do his job if his private advice to the President becomes public information. In the Stevenson case, President Kennedy was obligated to keep secret the advice given him, rather than to open State Department, White House and CIA sources to Alsop and Bartlett.

Despite his disagreements with Stevenson, Kennedy must back him to the hilt if he wishes him to be effective in the United Nations. There is little evidence that the President wishes to get rid of Stevenson. He has had nothing but praise for the Governor's performance in the U.N. Contrary to the allegations of Alsop and Bartlett, Stevenson contributed to the successful outcome of the Cuban showdown: he supported the arms blockade and opposed an invasion of Cuba at the risk of nuclear war. Stevenson never advocated a swap, as he did on October 27. On Stevenson's advice Kennedy postponed his blockade speech, thus gaining OAS support.

Stevenson, with his great prestige and abilities, is the ideal representative to the United Nations. Yet Kennedy has made only lukewarm efforts to affirm his support of Stevenson. Salinger's press statement was weak, the President's letter to Stevenson was unconvincing and Kennedy showed little warmth towards Stevenson at the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Foundation dinner. The President lost another chance to clarify his position on Stevenson at his press conference yesterday afternoon. If he does not act soon, Stevenson's reputation and effectiveness will be permanently impaired.

Although the President must take the chief responsibility for the consequences of this affair, Alsop and Bartlett are guilty of the worst kind of reckless journalism. They did not even report correctly who was at the meetings and they misquoted those who did attend. The reporters oversimplified the debate by dividing those officials involved into "hawks" and "doves." The article is full of cliches and melodramatic devices. If Alsop and Bartlett had accurately reported Stevenson's statements the present furor might never have arisen. But accurate or inaccurate, the article has set a dangerous precedent. Leaks from the top will further damage the effectiveness of this Administration.