45 Minutes With Mike Wallace

"The fact of the matter is, that when push came to shove in that courtroom under oath, it turned out that every fact in that broadcast was accurate."

"If we don't have the opportunity, the right, to criticize government without the fear of invasive and disabling libel suits, then where are we?"

"I think the memo [from the producer of the documentary] was, 'Now all we have to do is break Westmoreland and we have the whole thing aced.' Well, the moral of that story is, don't send memos."

"I have compassion for the man and understanding of the man now. The two of us became partners in misery in that courtroom."

CBS News investigative reporter, Mike Wallace, master of the confrontational interview, was forced to go on the defensive for a change when one of his broadcasts became the subject of a $120 million libel suit.

William C. Westmoreland, the former commander of U.S. ground forces in Vietnam, accused Wallace and CBS of reckless and malicious reporting in a 1982 documentary. "The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception." The documentary charged that Westmoreland deliberately falsified enemy troop estimates to convince Washington that enemy forces were weaker than they actually were.

The case went to trial last fall in a New York federal courtroom, and five months of testimony ensued. In the dosing days of the network's defense, two of the general's closest aides testified for CBS.

But one week before the dispute was scheduled to go to the jury. Westmoreland abruptly dropped all charges, and Wallace--who interrogates interview subjects like a prosecuting attorney--escaped cross-examination.

Last Thursday, the 66-year-old veteran of the popular "60 Minutes" new, program claimed vindication. Wallace, who was in Cambridge to give a speech at the Law School, forcefully defended the controversial broadcast.

In a 45-minute interview with Crimson editor David S. Hilzemath. Wallace called on the media to resist being intimidated by the threat of libel suits. Escerpts from that interview fellow.

To begin with the Westmoreland trial, coming amid a series of celebrated libel suits, what lasting impact--if any--do you think it will have on the media? Do you think the threat of similar multi-million dollar law suits will inhibit other news organizations in their reporting?

No. I don't I thing that it might have the beneficial effect of making its even more careful than we have been. AsGen Westmoreland acknowledged, in effect, when he withdrew his suit, we didn't have to retract a word of that broadcast. Which would seem to indicate that if was accurate, and that he and his attorneys understood that.

If it does chill us, we're damn fools.

On "60 Minutes" over a period of the last 17 years, libel suits have been threatened about 150 times. Libel actions, frivolous or otherwise, have been brought 100 times. Very few have gone to court, and we have never lost one.

A libel suit simply comes with the territory from time to time. You've got to understand that and go ahead and do your job.

That outlook may work for CBS and The Washington Post, but how about the smaller news organizations who have to contend with high insurance premiums and the threat of utter bankruptcy? Do you think that the specter of multi-mill, a dollar law suits will, in practice, chill them?

Unfortunately, yes.

Looking at the string of libel suits that have attracted so much attention of late, and most recently, the Washington Post case, do you think the courts have encroached on the freedom of the press in their dispensation of those cares?

I believe that Judge [Pierre N.] Leval--who incidentally runs a first class courtroom--should ever have permitted [the Westmoreland] case to go trial. He as much as acknowledged that himself after Westmoreland withdrew his suit by saying, "Perhaps this is a verdict best left to history."

Surely, public figures have access to newspapers, magazines, television. Let the public decide. Let the court of public opinion decide.

It is unnecessary, it seems to me, to go to the immensely draining process of libel litigation. And when I use the word draining, I'm talking about time, effort, emotion, money.

You said the Westmoreland case never should have gone to trial--

Summary judgment should have been granted by the judge, in my estimation, before it went to trial.

Because it was such a clearcut case?

Exactly--as was proved under oath in that courtroom. And the depositions of both sides were available to the judge prior to its going to trial.

Trying to get at a definition of libel, taking a look at the New York Times v. Sullivan case, do you think there is a valid distinction between the rights of public officials and the rights of private citizens?

Yes. Public officials are simply representatives, many of them, of government. And if we don't have the opportunity, the right, to criticize government without the fear of invasive and disabling libel suits, then where are we?

If that rule prevails, and if public officials are subjected to the most intense, unrestrained media scrutiny, do you think a lot of people will be scared out of government service?

Yes. I think that it is bound to make public service less attractive to certain individuals. But the press is surely no more robust today it has been in this country's history in the candor of its attacks on misfeasance or malfeasance in public office?

To what extent has the advent of television increased the media's capacity to scrutinize and intrude on the lives of public servants?

I think that television to some degree is responsible for the growth of libel actions for the reason that television coverage stirs the emotions more than print does. It a man sees himself called to account in print. It is somehow not as unsettling as that same calling to account on a television screen.

If we could take a look at some of the particulars in the Westmoreland trial, in out-takes from your taped interview with (former U.S. National Security Adviser Walter) Rostow. Rostow appeared to refute the hypothesis of "The Uncounted Enemy." Why weren't those comments included in the broadcast?

Dr. Rostow did not refuse the basic theis of the documentary. Dr. Rostow confessed that he knew nothing whatsoever about the nub of the discussion. He knew that there was a dispute between CIA and MACV about the uncounted enemy, about enemy strength.

He did not know, however, and confessed that he did not know on tape, that there had been a conspiracy to cook the books. All he knew was that there was a dispute between CIA and MACV. He knew nothing, he said, of the allegation about cooking of the books, it calculated deception. I think you're the captive of a Wall Street Journal editorial.

I understand that Dr. Rostow did say that President Johnson was aware of this dispute, and that if he was aware of conflicting troop estimates, then there could not be a deception.

It's quite apparent to me that when Westmoreland pulled out, after his chief of intelligence. Gen Joseph McChristian, and the chief of the order of battle branch responsible for putting together enemy strength figures, one called what the general had done "improper," the other called what he was asked to do by MACA command "dishonest," it seems to me that these two men who had specific and discreet knowledge of the charges leveled in the documentary, and each of them appeared is witnesses for us, it would seem to indicate that the basis of our story was accurate.

According to [Westmoreland's attorney Dan] Burt's evidence, you repeatedly told your producer that you were too busy to devote your full attention to this project, and further, that during the production of the documentary, you didn't understand what Westmoreland's motive would have been.

Given those reservations, given those doubts, why did you proceed?

I have doubt about every story that I do along the way, and I surely would not have proceeded not permitted the broadcast to go the air unless those doubts had been resolved. I don't know that Burt said all of the things that you suggest that he said. If he did, he was off-base on that as well as most other things in the course of the litigation.

I believe I quote accurately when I say that in an internal CBS memorandum, producer George Crile wrote about "breaking Westmoreland." Do you think his choice of words reveals a certain malice or lack of objectivity?

Really, no. That's newsroom talk. You hear it all the time.

Crile doesn't publish by himself. Crile has me to deal with. He has his associate producer to deal with. He has his superior editors to deal with. He's got to prove every fact that's in that broadcast. The fact of the matter is, that when push came to prove in that courtroom under oath, it turned out that every fact in that broadcast was accurate.

I think the memo was, "Now all we have to do is break Westmoreland and we have the whole thing aced." Well, the moral of that story is, don't send memos.

You stand by the broadcast in its entirely?

Completely.

You're confident then, that if Gen. Westmoreland chose to proceed, the jury could have ruled for CBS.

Not only am I confident. I think Gen. Westmoreland was satisfied that we were wrong to win not only on malice, but on truth as well.

I think he knew that the jury was going to decide against him, so he got out. Mind you, I have compassion for the man and understanding of the man now. The two of us became partners in misery in that courtroom. For the first two and one-half months. I was taking all the hits, day after day, without the opportunity to answer, and that's very difficult to handle. The for the second two and a half months, he was taking all the hits, day after day.

To sit there, chained to your chair, in effect, in that cold and drafty courtroom listening to your integrity being questioned and a reporter's integrity is all in the world that he's got--was very draining process.

How has the court of public opinion ruled in the case?

From what I've seen, both in editorials and in editorial cartoons, and in the comments immediately after the Westmoreland withdrawal, the impression I got was that everybody understood that Westie decided that discretion was the better part of valor and he decided to cut his losses.

Aside from the integrity of the broadcast, do you have any regrets in light of the ordeal that it precipitated?

I would not get involved with another broadcast of that nature unless I were able to give it my full attention. To some degree that is a regret about my participation in the broadcast. Certain of the production practices were found wanting and I'm inclined to agree with some of those.

Would you specify?

Yes. If there are guidelines there, abide by the guidelines. Mind you. I don't think there should be guidelines. The sole guideline should be accuracy and fairness.

It seems to be a documented fact that the press is something of an unpopular institution. A lot of people think that it's too powerful and that it's too insensitive.

You're certainly one of the most visible journalists around. Do you think your distinctive style, which some would call hard-hitting, others might call bullying, contributes to that public perception of the media?

First of all, I don't accept your premise. There is skepticism about the press just as there is skepticism about lawyers, politicians, even some members of the clergy. We are a better educated people today. We have the benefit of all manner of muckraking available to us. We are as partisan today as we have been in recent history, but at the same time, what's the most popular broadcast on the air? The evening news.

If you put together Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings, you'll find that two out of every three television sets that that are on are tuned to the evening news. If they're that skeptical about what we're bringing them on the air, why are they watching in such huge numbers?

I think we overstate the skepticism of the American people about television journalism.

On a separate but timely topic, what are your thoughts about the various bids to take over CBS Inc.?

I'm happy with the people I work for now, I have no desire to go to work for Ted Turner, and I don't think that I'm going to have to face the necessity.

What impact would he have on the network, if you'd care to speculate?

It's hard to know. He's a pal of Jesse Helms, and Jesse Helms has suggested that the news he sees on CBS is not news that pleases him. I have a hunch that I understand what kind of news would please him, and I'm sure that I would not want to work for that kind of a news operation.

Is it something that's on people's minds within CBS?

No, it's not on people's minds--certainly no fear that it's going to come to pass that Jesse Helms or Ted Turner is going to be our boss. I don't think that anybody takes their bids very serious.