76. Memorandum From the Assistant Director, Motion Pictures and Television Service, United States Information Agency (Herschensohn) to the Deputy Director (Loomis), Deputy Director for Policy and Plans (Weathersby), and Associate Director for Research and Assessment (Strasburg)1
Let me tell you about last Thursday2 morning.
I saw one of our films in its interlock stage that told the story of a polluted river in another country and about an observatory in still another country. Cinematically, it should have no trouble at all in competing for theatrical placement in the area of the world for which it was produced. After it was over I asked:
“What did this cost?”
“$22,000.”
“What does it do for us?”
“The United States financed the observatory.”
“But we didn’t say that in the narrative.”
“The Area Officer told us not to say that. You see, the U.S. paid the whole bill. 100%. If many countries gave financial contributions it might have been O.K. to mention, but it was only us.”
“You mean we don’t want them to know we financed it?”
“Right.”
“Well, why do we want to show them the damned observatory?”
“It builds pride in themselves and their whole area.”
[Page 172]“Not pride in us?”
“Pride in them.”
“Gee.”
“You see, there is no pride if they think we did it for them.”
“How about the first part of the film on the river?”
“The whole business of ecology and pollution that can harm fishing is a world-wide problem.”
“$22,000?”
“$22,000.”
“Are there other films planned in the series using the same kind of logic?”
“Of course. They are all on nation building and pride. The next one is on housing. It won’t show any U.S. involvement.”
“How many of these are scheduled?”
“Nine.”
“Then that’s $22,000 x 9?”
“$198,000.”
“Since it is such low key propaganda, would the area at least agree to a screen credit for USIS?”
“No. It would look like big brother.”
“$198,000?”
“$198,000.”
I had to leave because I was keeping a PAO waiting in my office. He just returned from the country in which he served and he wanted to talk about our films in that country.
He said, “They really love films on art and paintings. We should do more of them.”
“What else do you feel we need?”
“Can we get some underground films to show them?”
“Pardon?”
“Some underground films. They would go over well.”
“Most of them deal with sex or anti-religion or take an anti-U.S. posture on Vietnam or speak against us regarding race relations. Most of it is pretty bad.”
“But some of it would be good. They are interested in underground films.”
“But we aren’t a public service. What else do you think we should do?”
“They have a lot of problems our films could help solve.”
“Is that the criteria you use to show our films?”
[Page 173]“Well, it has to be something of real value to them. We should make more films that could help them in development. The whole under-developed world needs more films on national development. We ought to do more of it.”
“I think we have higher priorities.” (I said that knowing I was not completely honest since no one really knows.)
“We do?”
“Yes.”
He didn’t ask but I’m sure he wonders what they could possibly be.
Maybe he is right. Maybe they are all right. I don’t think so. The debate continues and I feel it should be resolved.
Of course national development and regional cooperation is a U.S. foreign policy objective. But won’t any and all U.S. objectives continue to be suspect if we are not held in respect? I would assume the USIA’s job is to insure that other nations of the world have respect for this country (a job so far unaccomplished) so our broad national and international goals can be more easily achieved.
As someone involved in propaganda for the United States, I find it difficult to get enthused about telling citizens of a foreign land that they have a great observatory and their country is responsible for it and at the same time have it be my job to make sure they don’t find out we financed it.
I know this may sound absurd but what would happen if we took all the money we spend trying to build respect for other countries and put it into projects that would have as their goal, building respect for this country?
Am I not thinking deeply enough?
Have we all thought so deeply that we have lost our purpose?
I mention all this about Thursday morning because there is one Thursday morning every week and sometimes more.