Evolved, because theres such a rich history and what you see and hope for moving forward. I was talking to tim about this earlier coming in. So the print, i want to say the print is the median age is probablily early 60s. We Just Launched a new website the main demographic at thenation. Com is 25 to 34. The continuity in change, the ability to bring people in and i mean, i want subscribers who are 105 and i want readers who are 12, and we had writers who are 13 and writers who are 104. So i think thats a great span, and its complicated, because i remember tom frank, many years ago did a cover story for us, what is hip . And i got angry calls, this is years ago. Richard was sitting anyway, what do you mean . What about my Health Insurance program . [ laughter ] so we got straddled. But i take great, i take heart in bringing in a new generation and thats partly the interns, its partly the student nation program, we have 60 campus correspondents all around the country, all kinds of campuses. Do you want to add something, victor . No, i agree. Well weve been privileged this evening. Victor, thank you. Thank you. Katrina, thank you. Soon some of this material will be on the web. We want to you make use of it, learn from it, and given the candor with which both of you spoke today, i cant imagine, i cant wait to read your papers. Thank you all for your attention. Thank you. Goodbye, thank you. Dbka first Lady Helen Taft called knellie made several notable chanlgz to the white house. The most obvious replacing the white male ushers with africanamerican staff. Also while in washington she led an effort to raise funds to create a memorial for victims of the titanic but her greatest legend is bringing thousands of japanese Cherry Blossom trees to the capitol. We examine the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. From Martha Washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. We recently sat down with david hadley, ph. D. Candidate at Ohio State University to talk about the cia and the press in the early days of the cold war. This interview is from the annual meeting for society of historians of American Foreign relations. Its 20 minutes. David hadley, graduate of Gettysburg College and a doctoral candidate at the Ohio State University in columbus, lets talk about times like these, the press and the cia brought in the early cold war, in researching this, what did you learn . Well, what i really learned is that the cia and the press had a pretty at times contentious and very multivaried relationship between the two of them, and it was really founded early on in this common understanding of cold war struggle that the United States is facing this new threat after world war ii, and the soviet union, and that theres in the early days, theres a really strong sense that had to Work Together in order to advance american interests, but over time, that really declined, and so when the press starts as an institution pushing back against the cia more, thats when the agency really got into trouble in a big way in the first time in the United States. How so . Well, byc 1975, the cia, wh has for most of its existence been trying really hard to avoid permanent congressional investigation of its activities, finds itself under investigation by two different committees and the two houses of congress, the Church Committee and the senate, and the Pike Committee and the house of representatives, that really turn out a lot of the cias, what you might call its dirty laundry. There was a cia report that was called the family jewels, that basically was a collection of illegal or at least questionable cia activities that had gone on from 1959 until 1972, and that gets aired to the American Public and its really, because theres a greater willingness on the part of the press to challenge the cia, the entire thing starts because Seymour Hirsch in december 1974 publishes a story that the cia has a massive domestic Surveillance Campaign going on in the United States, which is in direct contravention of the agencys charter as its prohibited from operating within the confines of the United States. On cspan radio a couple weeks ago we played the audio of senator frank church, democratic senator from idaho, and if you listen to what he said back then about listening in on phone conversations and trying to ta. Into your information, we could play that today, and it is the same argument. Yes. Lot of the lessons about intelligence we kind of first a lot of the questions i should say first really started going during these investigations, and its interesting with the National Security agency today, and those questions is, the church in Pike Committees are looking at the cia, the fbi, and to some extent the nsa, and they really recognize that the biggest threat in terms of you know, potential violations of privacy, and listening in on americans do come from increasing electronic communication, but theyre all sharing this idea that surveillance does change things, that knowing youre under surveillance will have an impact, and that by having a Surveillance Program against the cia specifically looking at antivietnam war protesters under the belief that they might be influenced by some foreign power in order to, you know, work against american interests, that cia surveillance there could be really damaging to the Free Expression of ideas. The cia also werent helped by the fact that the name of that program was called chaos, and had very negative connotations, even though the cia insists that it was just a randomly chosen code name. 40 years later, we are still talking about these two committees. Just how significant were they . Well theyre very significant for the cia and the fbi. The fbi had been conducting its own very questionable activities under j. Ed dpar hoover, and those get very tcurtailed. The Central Intelligence agency permanently established by the senate by the congress thats not just a kind of blip on the radar. Its permanently under supervision, which is why we get now for example dianne feinstein, who has an investigation into the cias enhanced interrogation tactics, thats kind of coming from the foundations of oversight that get laid down by the church and the Pike Committees, and theyre also very important for ushering in a new era in the cia in the sense that a lot of the more active or more you might say reckless things the cia had done in the cold war for some time at least get curtailed now, how long or if theyre just changing to different ways of doing things rather than what theyd been doing, back in the cold war, thats a question for debate. But i think the church and Pike Committees really changed the environment in which the cia is working in. It knows that theres some people looking at it now when it hadnt known that before. This is a minor point but its only been relatively recently that if you travel in northern virginia, you can identify where the cia is. It used to say it was a transportation or highway office, but on a larger issue of before the cia was developed after world war ii, what did we do . Well, you have military intelligence agencies that are, you know, the office of Naval Intelligence or the bureau of military intelligence for the army, and they essentially were focused on the tasks that were deemed important for their specific services, and they often didnt talk to one another very well. The state department had something called the black chamber that was actually pretty effective in reading diplomatic mail, and intercepting cables, but it gets closed by the secretary of state henry stimpson, who says at least according to the story that gentlemen dont read each others mail, and so going into world war ii, theres not a real central organizer of the american intelligence effort. T intelligence effort. And thats really where the cia gets created after the war, because a lot of people look back at world war ii, and especially on pearl harbor, and the lesson is, you know, not that we didnt have reason to suspect that the japanese were going to attack at pearl harbor but that all of the different elements of the early American Intelligence Community werent talking to each other. So thats kind of the cias initial role, is its less about operations and more about coordination of effort. But you can actually see that this happens again and again. The 9 11 Commission Report has very similar conclusions, that the problem wasnt a failure of collection, but a failure to put all of the pieces together in time to prevent, you know, such a major attack. I was just going to ask you about 9 11. Researching this topic, does it surprise you that that break down occurred, leading up to 9 11 . It doesnt really. And part of the reason for that is that the cia, even though its originally conceived as something thats going to be, you know, working with all these different agencies and kind of a central hub for intelligence to work through, it pretty quickly gets directed more towards covert action, towards, you know, aggressive activity against communist nations or potential communist nations in third world or in the eastern bloc during the cold war, and i actually argued that part of the reason for that change is the nature of the press coverage. That from reporters who support the mission of the cia, or who dont talk about its activities, you know, they kind of give a certain amount of cover to people who want the cia to be a more active and aggressive agency. Whereas, every time theres, you know, an event that happens that is somehow against u. S. Interests, the cia in its early years is getting blamed. Why didnt you predict this . And so theres riots in bogota in 1948. Those disrupt a conference that secretary of state george mar marshall is at. So the cia gets blamed for not predicting violence arising in bogota. So youve got this kind of dynamic going where covert action is either supported or at least not talked about, whereas the more analytic, the more predictive side is attack from early on. I dont think it gets the chance to really develop as strongly as it might have. In its nearly 70 years, who are among the cia directors who have made a difference, who have played a significant role in shaping the agency . Well, really significant early on is alan dulles. Alan dulles is the brother of the secretary of state during the eisenhower administration. So 1953, the eisenhower dulles is kind of in charge of the United States public interaction with the world, and alan dulles gets in charge of the notsopublic interaction with the world. Its under him that the cia first successfully overthrows a Foreign Government in iran in 1953. And he is very much an advocate of this more aggressive, covert actionoriented agency. But theres others, very important, come later that leave their own distinct mark and change the agency and shift it. I dont want to suggest for example that theres no analysis being done, but cia, and you get a guy like john mccomb in the 1960s whos, hes director of Central Intelligence during the cuban missile crisis. And he really buckles down and focuses especially on providing good intelligence and keeping a lower profile. So id say those are two of the most important early directors of the cia. Why did you get interested in this topic . I got interested in this topic, based on a conversation i was having with one of my professors. We were reading about the overthrow of the government of guzman in guatemala, in 1954. And my adviser wondered, what did the American People think about this . And that really led me to start investigating how the cia and the press interacted with unanother. The press is really how we as a people know what our countrys actually doing. And so what i found is theres some stories about whats some stories about whats happening withy9 reasonable, you know, analytical person looking at press coverage in 1954 can tell that were doing something in guatemala, but that its not nearly as, you know, investigative or sustained in its investigation as it would be later. And yet, its ironic, because reporters want to know everything, and this is an agency that prides itself in secrecy. So describe that interaction between this agency, these agents and the press. So, where you get this interaction is that, well, the press wants to know things, and they look to the cia for information. They dont necessarily want to write about the cia, so the most basic relationship you have between the press and the agency is, you know, a reporter will go and have lunch with an agent at the cia, and hell get some Background Information that he can use. And the cia is often a valuable source of intelligence for reporters. At a certain point, intelligence work and the press, theyre doing the same kind of thing for very different reasons, in terms of getting information. So if youre getting a lot of good stuff from the cia, you dont necessarily want to do anything thats going to aggravate them or to close down that source of information. The press wants to keep access. The New York Times had a, you know, an arrangement with the cia, during the 1960s, that every once in a while, theyd send reporters from the Washington Bureau to the cia headquarters and get briefed on world events for deep background, so it was a mutually beneficial relationship between the two of them. And then there were some reporters who just really wanted to cooperate with u. S. Intelligence. Theres joseph and stewart alsop. Two famous americans who went beyond just Trading Information to working with the cia on some of their projects out of a sense of patriotism and adventure. Joseph alsop took a trip to visit orwells wife. The animated animal farm gets a lot of support from the cia because of its antisoviet message. Joseph alsop offered to get a reporter briefed by the cia, so all this information that the cia wants out, that it cant necessarily just come out and tell people about, and then send those reporters to europe and have them report things that the cia is giving them. And presenting it as information that has come about through just basic reporting practice. So, if david hadley had unfettered access to go to the cia headquarters in virginia, see everything, talk to anyone, what would you look for . I would look for any file on arthur hayes sulzberger, who is the publisher of the New York Times for the early part of my project, hes there until the 1960s. And whether or not the cia actually paid him to cooperate with them, because thats a question thats been debated quite a bit. Id really like to find out about that. How did you go about researching this dissertation in where did you go for information . Who did you talk to . And what was available to you . Well, a lot of things are available in terms of government files from the freedom of information act. The freedom of information act reve reveals a lot about some communications between the cia and the press. The New York Times has a really great archive that i looked at, if you want to look at records of how reporting was done in the 1940s and 1950s, thats a great place to go. And honestly, i read a lot of newspapers. I read about 26 years worth of newspaper stories rs anything relating to intelligence in the times, the washington post, the Chicago Tribune to kind of see what kind of an impact the cia has, so that even if you cant see the precise impact, you can see kind of the wake that it leaves behind it, like its a whale in the ocean. You might not necessarily see it, but youll definitely see, you know, the waves coming after it. Theis is, of course, one aspect of the cia story as you move ahead and look at other areas of this topic, what would be next . Well, i especially want to form a more indepth information of the church and the pipe committees, because they kind of show up at the end of my work now, and i think that theyre very important for understand being the country that we live in today, and the way that this huge part of our government, the National Security, you know, apparatus, really functions, and i think its important to try and better understand what they got right, what they might have gotten wrong and why it happened the way it did. Two final points. First, in terms of your research, you provided a couple of examples, but anything that really surprised you . Anything that was really a wow moment for you. One thing that was surprising to me is that in 1967, the cia is discovered to have been involved in the National Student association and has a much bigger role in private affairs than i necessarily, than most people necessarily would have suspected. And the New York Times is so disturbed by this that they have an indepth investigation as to whether theres been any inappropriate contact between them, their reporters and the cia, and they find some really interesting stories that theres an official, a member of the Associated Press in hong kong whos accusing everybody of being a communist and who is almost certainly working for the krft ia, at least according to this one secondhand reporter, that the cia approached a times reporter in berlin in 1948 to spy for them, that he had a secret