22. Editorial Note
On May 19, 1969, the United States Advisory Commission on Information released its 24th report, covering the calendar year of 1968, and later submitted the report to both the House of Representatives and the Senate under a transmittal letter dated July 1, 1969. The members of the Commission at the time of the report’s release were Chairman Frank Stanton, Sigurd S. Larmon, M.S. Novik, Palmer Hoyt, and Thomas Vail. In the foreword of the report, the members stressed that the Commission, established in 1948 to “watch over a communications dialogue with the rest of the world,” had “arrived simultaneously at its majority and an inescapable conclusion: Our national commitment is incomplete.” Noting the disparity in funding between U.S. information activities and defense and international affairs programs, the Commission asserted:
“Our concern is a matter of record. ‘There are four channels through which a nation may conduct its foreign affairs. The first is diplomacy. The second is trade. The third is communication. The fourth is force. Three are complementary, the last is alternative. Indeed, the last alternative. It is indicative of the disordered priorities of our time that 95 percent of our foreign affairs moneys are devoted to the channel that the other 5 percent is dedicated to avoid.’
“But the essential problem is not in dollars. It is in direction.
“Which way best leads from where we are to where we want the world to be?
“How are the two hundred million of us to convince the thirty-three hundred million of them that we are on the right path, and that it is wide enough for all to travel.
“Eventually, if not now, it must be through knowing each other, then trusting each other.
“And if eventually, why not now?
“That is the petition of the 24th Report.”
(Twenty-Fourth Report of the United States Advisory Commission on Information, Letter From Chairman, United States Advisory Commission on Information Transmitting the Twenty-Fourth Report of the United States Advisory Commission on Information, Pursuant to the Provisions of Public Law 80–402, House Document No. 91–133, 91st Congress 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969, pages 2–3)
In the first paragraph of the body of the report, the Commission assessed the United States’ global standing. It concluded: “The world’s curiosity about the United States—about its policies and intentions, its actions and capabilities—has increased in proportion to the growth of America’s power and influence. The world’s opinion about the United States has fluctuated measurably. In recent years, the trend has been [Page 47] down.” (Ibid., page 5) The Commission noted that a number of opportunities “remain unexploited” and that “some past gains must be consolidated,” linking these statements to nine areas for improvement regarding the United States Information Agency (USIA): research, Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting, United States Information Service (USIS) libraries and information centers, cultural and educational exchanges, communications techniques, the connection of private resources to the U.S. communications program, foreign journalists and news organizations, representation allowances, and the career corps for Foreign Service Information Officers (FSIOs). (Ibid., pages 5–6) The Commission ended the report, stating:
“One basic theme is common to this and the 23 earlier reports prepared by this Commission for the Congress and the President: that America’s foreign policy must be strengthened by the infusion of psychological or communications factors. This can occur only if USIA is permitted to play a role where the action is—in the National Security Council, with the Secretary of State, with Ambassadors abroad, and wherever feasible in the Cabinet. The past 20 years have seen tortured, though discernible, progress toward that end. It is our hope that the reluctance of the past will be overcome by the enthusiastic endorsement of the future.” (Ibid., page 9)
The Commission members included an afterword in the 24th Report, referencing a recommendation made in the previous year’s report regarding a “major review,” predicated on 11 questions, of USIA and “the governmental context in which it operates.” Such questions, the Committee conceded, “are still worth asking:
“Is the United States Information Agency to be but an agent of American ‘propaganda’?
“Should it be more than an arm of foreign policy?
“Are information, educational and cultural objectives compatible within one agency?
“Were they consolidated outside of the Department of State, should that body have Cabinet rank?
“Or should the reins be drawn together within a restructured Department of State?
“Does the responsibility of those who create the foreign policy of the United States go beyond its declaration?
“Should they have charge of its promulgation as well?
“Should USIA have a hand in information dispersal for Government agencies beyond the Department of State?
“Should it play a role in the influence of policy as well as in its execution?
“Should it help support those private organizations whose overseas activities had been subsidized covertly in the past by the federal government and whose future funding is under study by a committee chaired by the Secretary of State?
[Page 48]“Do we really intend that USIA work toward ‘mutual understanding’; is it to help us understand them as well as to help them understand us?
“As we repeat the questions, so also do we repeat the hope that they will be answered.” (Ibid., pages 10–11)
For additional information concerning the report, see “Advisory Unit Finds U.S. Prestige Low,” New York Times, June 30, 1969, page 23 and “USIA Panel Sees Erosion Of Image,” Washington Post, June 30, 1969, page A4. Another copy of the report is in the National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research and Assessment, Library, Archives, Office of the Archivist, Records Relating to the Advisory Commission on Information, 1955–5/77, Entry P–135, Box 2.