information and the opinion of others from sources wherever situated, and to disseminate opinions and information, either by word, in writing, in the press, in books or by visual, auditive or other means.

Note: The absence of limitations in this draft article is a natural consequence of the wish of the Representative of the United States for one overall limitation article rather than spelling out every possible limitation in each article.96 This problem is discussed by the writer, supra pages 570-574.

APPENDIX II

Three Significant Drafts of Article 1797

Draft A, by the Sub-Commission on Freedom of Information and of the Press, Jan.-Feb. 1948.98

Draft B, by United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, Geneva, Mar.-Apr. 1948.99

Draft C, submitted by the Representative of France at Fifth Session of the Commission on Human Rights, May-June 1949.100

Note: The author has indicated by italics portions of the Conference Draft which differ from the Sub-Commission Draft. He has italicized the entire French Draft, which differs from both the others.

Α

Sub-Commission

1. Every person shall have the right to freedom of thought and expression without interference by governmental action: this right shall include freedom to hold opinions, to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers, either orally, by written or printed matter, in the form of art, or by legally operated visual or auditory devices.

2. The right to freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities. Penalties, liabilities or re

96 E/600, p. 37.

97

The Conference Draft is reprinted in REPORT OF THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, June 23, 1949 (E/1371, pp. 35-36). There are a few typographical changes. Arabic numbers are not in parentheses, small letters preceding subdivisions of paragraph 2 are not italicized, and the first word of each subdivision is not capitalized. "Government" is capitalized in subdivision (b) and "states" is not capitalized in subdivision (h). In paragraph 4, “article” is capitalized. An obvious error in subdivision (b) of the Commission's version is the substitution of "invite" for "incite." In (a), the Commission mistakenly says "interest."

98

REPORT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMISSION, Feb. 6, 1948 (E/CN. 4/80, pp. 4-5). 99 FINAL ACT OF THE CONFERENCE, ANNEX B, pp. 19-20.

100 REPORT OF FIFTH SESSION OF COMMISSION, June 23, 1949 (E/1371, p. 34).

INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ERWIN D. CANHAM*

At the first session of the United Nations General Assembly, the importance to the preservation of peace of the freer interchange of information was clearly recognized. Indeed, the significance of the people's sources of news was well understood by many long before that. On several occasions, the League of Nations sought to take measures to lower barriers which hampered the interchange of information. Newspapermen themselves, particularly in the western democracies, have long maintained pressure on governments to help in lowering these barriers. As early as the 1890's they began concerted international efforts to secure a more ample passage of news across boundaries.

When, early in World War II, it became clear to many that the basic conflict in the world was in reality a war of ideas, there began an intensive effort to see that after the war was over, the removal of barriers to the interchange of news should be an essential part of the peace aims. Early in 1945, before the United Nations Charter was drafted in San Francisco, the American Society of Newspaper Editors sent a committee of three around the world to investigate conditions of newsgathering and transmission and to recommend measures that could be taken.

Mr. Kent Cooper, general manager of the Associated Press, and Mr. Hugh Baillie, president of the United Press, had for many years made many practical contributions to the lowering of barriers. In the years between the wars, both organizations had contributed materially to breaking down the monopolies by which news had been cartellized in the hands of governmental news agencies. They, and alert newspapermen in many countries, joined in one way or another in the campaign to facilitate a freer flow of news. As World War II ended, there were high hopes that a lowering of news barriers might contribute measurably to popular understanding everywhere of the conditions requisite for a stable and peaceful world.

Despite all this awareness, very little actual progress has been made since the end of World War II to improve the flow of objective information to people. Indeed, there are probably more obstacles to news-gathering and transmission in mid-1949 than there were at the end of 1945, for such barriers rather accurately reflect the international climate and the state of tension between nations. The international effortlargely centered on the United Nations to follow the victory in 1945 over nazism and fascism with a new era of free information has had certain external successes,

A.B., D.Litt. Bates College; A.B., M.A. Oxford University; D.Hum. Boston University, Kenyon College, Yale University. Editor, The Christian Science Monitor. President, 1948-49, the American Society of Newspaper Editors; U. S. delegate to United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, Geneva, 1948; U. S. alternate delegate to United Nations General Assembly, 1949; member, U. S. Commission on Information.

but in real fact conditions have not improved. The people in many parts of the world are still not accurately or objectively informed about events, and their ignorance or delusions are a prime cause of international mistrust and instability.

Let us first examine the kind of information the people of the world are now actually getting, and then let us see what the United Nations or anybody else—can do about it.

I

INFORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES

First, the American people. With all the deficiencies of the United States press and radio—and no candid American journalist would seek to whitewash them— the fact remains that the American people are the best-informed great people in the world, and they are better informed than they have ever been before. These are plain historical facts.

They should, of course, be much better informed than they are. But with full recognition of all shortcomings, it is nevertheless true that every twenty-four hours an enormous flow of information about the world pours into the United States, most of it is distributed to newspaper offices and radio stations, and a substantial portion is disseminated to the people. There are some newspapers and some radio stations, of course, which truncate the flow of national and international news, and give prominence largely to the sensational and bizarre.

However, there are great regional newspapers in most parts of the United States which print a very substantial file of national and world news each day. And certain metropolitan newspapers which specialize in careful and comprehensive news have circulation in all parts of the country. Nowhere in the United States is it impossible for an individual to have ready daily access to a reasonably adequate account of world happenings.

Of course, it is important for this news to reach the great masses of people, as well as the specialists or the conscientious few who go out of their way to be well informed. Probably, too, some newspapers tend to underestimate the serious interests of many of their readers. But, conversely, newspapers soon go out of business if they do not retain the vivid interest of their readers, and so the editor must make his difficult daily compromise between the important and the interesting.

At the other end of the news-scale, there are some American correspondents abroad who are not fully equipped to judge and report the enormously complicated events of the vast areas where they work. Some of them, too, are required to furnish piquant rather than significant copy. But these few are considerably outnumbered by experienced, shrewd correspondents who are fearless, acute judges of men and events, and who contribute to the steady flow of important news pouring into the United States.

There are, however, large areas of the world into which such correspondents cannot now penetrate, or from which their copy is rigorously and politically censored.

In the Soviet Union, the few correspondents permitted to remain there are rarely allowed to leave Moscow, they are not supposed to seek news from anybody except the official spokesmen, and so their opportunities to find out what is going on are gravely limited. In the satellite states of eastern Europe, conditions vary widely. In some, such as Rumania, news-gathering is extremely difficult. In others, such as Poland, few limitations are applied. In China, both nationalist and communist authorities have censored severely in recent times. Censorship is periodically applied in various Latin-American countries. There are thus immense dark areas in the world from which the flow of objective reporting is today impossible.

This is not the place for a detailed examination of the internal shortcomings of the American press. Against these limitations-which have come in for a good deal of somewhat academic criticism lately-must be set the dynamic force which has produced the American news-gathering system. In the nineteenth century virtually all American newspapers were severely biased partisan organs, and the press associations had only begun to girdle the globe. Today, news reporting in American newspapers has become relatively objective.

Anyone whose concept of the limitations of American newspapers makes him doubt this statement, is invited to examine the files of American dailies at any time in the nineteenth century, or for that matter at any previous time in the twentieth century. The news service given readers has grown steadily better.

Meantime, the American press associations have freed themselves from inhibiting relations with other national press associations-most of them formerly governmentally controlled-and do an independent job everywhere in the world that they are permitted to operate. Moreover, the three American press associations—the Associated Press, the United Press, and the International News Service-sell news to news agencies and newspapers in nearly every foreign country. They are today the chief purveyors of news in the whole world. Their relative objectivity and independence make this function immensely important. But the preeminence the American press associations enjoy has also brought problems, which will be examined in due course.

In addition, a few American newspapers-but very few-maintain their own staff of foreign correspondents. In prosperous times, the news weeklies also keep extensive staffs of correspondents abroad, and so do the radio networks. But the basic core of news reaching Americans from overseas comes through the three press associations. On the whole, as I have said, they produce a broad and balanced file of news. But, since it is an essentially commercial operation, and must be based upon popular interest, it will often have to sacrifice so-called importance to reader interest.

After all, information is of no importance or value until it has entered into the consciousness and thinking of the reader. Somehow, it must be made interesting enough to penetrate. The academic critic must not be too supercilious about reader interest, and the newspaperman must remember basic significance. Between these