No agenda to weaken Greens with reduced caucus budget, Liberals say
Leader David Coon says changes to funding at legislature is forcing him to cut office staff in half
Green Party to layoff 2 staff membersThe Liberal government's House leader says there's no secret agenda to weaken the Green Party in the New Brunswick legislature.
Marco LeBlanc says a change to party caucus operating budgets that is forcing the Greens to lay off two staffers is simply a reflection of last fall's election results.
Former Green MLA Kevin Arseneau failed to win re-election, cutting the party's caucus from three members to two.
"We felt as a committee that a caucus of two should not have the same amount of money as a caucus of three," LeBlanc said.
"They've lost a third of their caucus, and the numbers that you're going to see in the budget next week are going to be reflective of that."
Government
House Leader Marco LeBlanc says even with the cuts, the Greens will
still have a higher ratio of staffers to MLAs than the other parties. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
Green Leader David Coon is laying off his press secretary, Jill Mersereau, and his executive assistant, Lindsay DeMerchant, at the end of the month.
The new budget allocations for party caucuses were recently decided by the all-party legislative administration committee, which oversees the functioning of the assembly.
The Liberals have a majority on the committee, which meets in secret.
That's why Coon is not able to talk about specific dollar figures until next week's provincial budget is released.
But he said losing the two staffers will make it harder to scrutinize the Liberal government.
"How do we make sure parliamentary democracy is effective? That means ensuring the opposition parties have the resources required to hold government accountable," he said.
"This is going to make it that much more challenging for us to hold the government accountable."
Green Party Leader David Coon says losing the two staff members will make it harder to scrutinize the Liberal government. (Shane Fowler/CBC News)
He said the changes to the funding aren't going to require the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives to cut any staff.
But LeBlanc said the Greens will still have a higher ratio of staffers to MLAs than the two other parties, LeBlanc said.
Premier Susan Holt's Liberal win last fall lifted the Liberals from 17 seats in 2020 to 31 seats now — the largest government caucus since the 2010 election.
LeBlanc said to reflect that, the small support staff for the 11 backbench Liberal MLAs will gain a new position.
The Progressive Conservatives meanwhile dropped from 27 MLAs to 16. The party caucus did not respond to a request for comment.
All registered parties get additional funding under legislature rules, and members of recognized parties in the house get the right to make statements and to deliver official responses to statements by government ministers.
Premier
Susan Holt's Liberal win lifted the Liberals from 17 seats in 2020 to
31 — the largest government caucus since the 2010 election. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
A party must elect five MLAs to be officially recognized in the legislature under its standing rules.
But starting in 1991 with NDP leader Elizabeth Weir — her party's lone elected member — smaller parties have been granted exceptions in a vote by MLAs.
The Greens and the People's Alliance later benefited from the same exception.
All told, exceptions have been in effect for more time than not since Weir's first election, which LeBlanc said is why the Liberals have asked another committee of MLAs to look at changing the threshold.
LeBlanc wouldn't say Wednesday whether it's likely to be easier or harder for the two-member Green caucus to meet but said there's no plan to marginalize them.
"We're going to have conversations in committee next week, and we're going to hopefully find a consensus among committee members … to move forward, [to] respect the rules but also without removing the third-party status of the Greens," he said.
Corrections
- A previous version of this story incorrectly described parties that receive additional funding under legislature rules. The story has been updated to reflect that registered — instead of recognized — parties are those that receive additional funding.Mar 13, 2025 7:15 AM ADT
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Content Deactivated
David Amos
Content Deactivated
Go Figure why I was not permitted to debate one of the dudes who sent me butter tarts
All-Party debate September 5, 2018 Hosted by New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners Location: Sussex, NB Hosts: SNB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8HNzaABZww&t=556s
Content Deactivated
David Amos
Content Deactivated
Go for it
Our 1st-past-the-post electoral system is not democracy at all, it is as rigged as a Lunenburg schooner.
MR Cain
Reply to Chesley Mesher
Conservatives won't change it without a referendum; so much for that idea.
Bob Smith
Reply to Chesley Mesher
When both Liberal and Conservative parties at the federal or province level have shown zero inclination to change it, we're stuck with the system we have.
David Amos
Reply to Bob Smith
Yup
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
https://openparliament.ca/committees/electoral-reform/42-1/39/david-amos-1/only/
Bob Smith
Many folks here openly criticizing meetings done in secrecy and rightly so. However, the odious folks known as lobbyists are the people that really control government agendas behind closed doors.
David Amos
Reply to Bob Smith
Yup but don't forget the legions of well paid consultants
MR Cain
Reply to Bob Smith
The new budget allocations for party caucuses were recently decided by the all-party legislative administration committee. That is "All Party", which includes the Greens. Nothing to do with lobbyists or agenda.
Ronald Miller
The "it is everyone else's fault" budget draws closer.
Jack Bell
Reply to Ronald Miller
But... but... the conservatives are to blame for our actions.
Daniel Franklin
Reply to Jack Bell
To be fair, it usually is the conservatives to blame.
Ronald Miller
Reply to Daniel Franklin
I agree, they are the reason for the current mess Canada has been in since 2015, they just have to be, right? They will also be the reason for next week's provincial budget mess, because, well just because.
David Amos
Reply to Daniel Franklin
How so?
Dan Lee
Reply to Daniel Franklin
your right.....Harper made sure of it........
Ronald Miller
Reply to Dan Lee
I agree with you also, he forced JT to spend Canada into a massive debt situation we will be digging out from for decades, he also implemented the useless carbon taxes and also is responsible for the record amount of scandals under JT, he just has to be.
Ronald Miller
Where is the outrage from left supporters that would have been posting in droves had this happened under the previous gov't?
Jack Bell
Reply to Ronald Miller
They'll be here any second to agree with you.... any second second now.....
Daniel Franklin
Reply to Ronald Miller
Did you miss the last election? A lot of supporters from the "right" seemed to have voted for the "left".
Ronald Miller
Reply to Daniel Franklin
Did you miss the class on reading comprehension? I am not talking about elections, I am talking about left supporters who used to post on here on a regular basis who can no longer post the same dribble they used which blamed everything on the current gov't, this should not be difficult to follow.
David Amos
Reply to Daniel Franklin
“Path forward to Election 2028.”
David Amos
Content Deactivated
Are you a PCNB Victory Circle Member?
Ronald Miller
Reply to Daniel Franklin
I am not talking about elections, I am talking about left supporters who used to post on here on a regular basis who can no longer post the same dribble they used which blamed everything on the current gov't, this should not be difficult to follow.
Daniel Franklin
Reply to Ronald Miller
You aren't talking about elections but you're talking about "left" supporters. Seems there are more "left" supporters than "right" supporters in this province.
Mac Isaac
So the rule is a party gets $X for each member elected, so the Greens prior to the election received $3X and after the election are entitled to $2X...
Now, if the government wanted to, they could offer the Greens extra but isn't that kinda playing favourtism to another left of centre party? And wouldn't everybody start howling about that? Seems to me that that's exactly what would happen. I respect Mr. Coons immensely and even wish his party had done better, but...
David Amos
Reply to Mac Isaac
Welcome back to the circus
Gregory Wulf
The "agenda" to weaken the Greens came from voters.
David Amos
Reply to Gregory Wulf
Bingo
Don't you voters get tired of the Conservatives cutting Liberal policy, and in turn the Liberal cut up the Conservatives policy back and forth, over and over again?
Arron Wheatly
Reply to John Charlton
Probably 4000 people nation wide read this. Less than 3% nation wide even bothers to come to this site. Your question should be why are taxpayers funding media in this country, through various agencies, when no one is paying attention.
MR Cain
Reply to Arron Wheatly
So where does everybody go? This is still the first choice of Conservatives.
Akimbo Alogo
Reply to MR Cain
not even close, princess
MR Cain
Reply to Akimbo Alogo
So where does everybody go, queenie?
Jack Bell
Reply to MR Cain
Echo chambers... hence the inability to cooperate.
MR Cain
Reply to Akimbo Alogo
Still waiting.
Brian Robertson
Reply to John Charlton
Another reason to have stuck with the Conservatives on top of balanced budgets and common sense policies.
Oh well, in Democracies, you get the governments you deserve.
David Amos
Reply to Brian Robertson
I have been saying that since 2004
MR Cain
Reply to Brian Robertson
What is your pronoun favourite?
Peter Moss
What's with government officials meeting in secret?
John Charlton
Reply to Peter Moss
Caucus is always a closed door meeting.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to Peter Moss
They don't want us to know their globalist plans for us. Why else do it?
John Charlton
Reply to Arron Wheatly
Back to QAnon you go.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to John Charlton
Yeah. Did you read Net Zero yet? Will you? No.
Just put downs.
John Charlton
Reply to Arron Wheatly
Send me the web site link and I promise to read it.
MR Cain
Reply to Arron Wheatly
How about a link? Is this a book, opinion piece, or conspiracy theory? Always willing to read stuff, even silly stuff.
MR Cain
Reply to Peter Moss
All-party legislative administration committee meets in secret.
Peter Moss
Reply to John Charlton
"The Liberals have a majority on the all-party legislative administration committee, which meets in secret."
Imo, there's way too much secrecy in gov.
MR Cain
Reply to Arron Wheatly
In New Brunswick? Pure comedy.
David Amos
Reply to Peter Moss
Go Figure
MR Cain
Reply to John Charlton
The new budget allocations for party caucuses were recently decided by the all-party legislative administration committee, not a caucus meeting.
John Charlton
Most voters don't see how voting green as being a good move.
In Kitchener Center, Ontario we are green both provincial and federal.
Our MPP and MP are totally committed to our community first and that is a very good
felling, and our greens are not tied to corporate handouts.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to John Charlton
How could they be? They want a total de industrialization with intermittent power generation.
No steel production
No concrete
No cargo ships
No air travel
No bread (produces CO2)
No spirits (produces CO2)
But mowing down the rain forest to put in a road for the COP30 is A OK.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to Arron Wheatly
And, flying there by the thousands on private jets is also A OK.
John Charlton
Reply to Arron Wheatly
And where ever you got that information is completely inaccurate.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to John Charlton
UK's Net Zero.
You have not read it. I have.
How's Germany doing?
John Charlton
Reply to Arron Wheatly
Each country parties have their own interests.
The Greens of the UK are not the Greens of Canada.
Arron Wheatly
Reply to John Charlton
But, make up any excuse to not actually read it.
You enjoy sending billions to countries under the Paris Accord pretense only to have those countries leap frog Canada technologically and put probes on the moon, or even land there?
BB Louie
Reply to Arron Wheatly
The Greens love Carney's Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero
David Amos
Content Deactivated
Reply to John Charlton
Dream on
Noel Fowles
Reply to BB Louie
you should too!!
Arron Wheatly
"The Liberals have a majority on the committee, which meets in secret."
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
Some just won't learn from history.
David Amos
Reply to Arron Wheatly
Amen
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
Al Clark
Reply to David Amos
A great man. Why he was taken out.
Robert Audobon
Seems pretty reasonable. I mean, is two members even a "caucus" ? Seems more like a coincidence...
David Amos
Reply to Robert Audobon
There are no coincidences
Jack Whitehead
Let's have an election so team red can join them.
Robert Audobon
Reply to Jack Whitehead
You should do a parlay on that. Based on the current odds, winning a 2 dollar bet on that outcome would set you up for life...
David Amos
Reply to Robert Audobon
Why not bet the farm?
Ron parker
win more seats, problem solved.
David Amos
Reply to Ron parker
What problem?
Marco LeBlanc
Belle-Baie-Belledune
Marco LeBlanc is an energetic, strategic, and
community-focused leader with almost ten years of experience in
government at both the provincial and federal levels. As a proud Acadian
born and raised in Petit-Rocher, New Brunswick, Marco has a big heart
and a deep commitment to serving others, which has been the driving
force behind his civic engagement from a young age.
With a
Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the Université de
Moncton, Marco has always had a passion for leadership and supporting
others in finding the best solutions. During his time as a student, he
co-founded Éveil PME and the Club Entrepreneur Étudiant, served as the
Marketing Vice-President of the Youth Entrepreneurship Summit, acted as
an Ambassador of the Pond Deshpande Center, and participated in the Top
Talent competition by the Wallace McCain Institute.
Throughout his professional career, Marco has gained extensive political experience at both the provincial and federal levels. He has held progressive roles in the Government Members Office, where he served as a Research and Communications Officer and Senior Engagement Strategist. During this time, he was the staff lead for the Select Committee on Climate Change, built relationships with key stakeholders to support the Liberal caucus, and wrote statements and speeches for government members.
Marco also served as the Executive Assistant to the Minister of Labour, Employment and Population Growth, and subsequently the Minister of Tourism, Heritage and Culture. In this role, he provided multifaceted advice and support to the Minister on key matters including constituent, regional, and organizational files. As the Executive Assistant to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Marco provided advice on procedures, key decisions, and communications in the Legislative Assembly and acted as a key liaison between the Speaker and the Official Opposition caucus.
In his role as the Atlantic Advisor for the Liberal Research Bureau, Marco played a liaison role between the minister’s office and the Members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada, allowing him to build many multisectoral relationships. Most recently, he served as the Director of Community and Economic Development for the Member of Parliament, Serge Cormier, gaining a deep understanding of the key projects and dynamics in the Restigouche-Chaleur region and mobilizing crucial projects that have greatly helped the region.
Always ready to mobilize his skills and experience to help, Marco has worked on over 10 election campaigns, spanning from Ontario to Newfoundland. Through dedicating a significant portion of his time to supporting local candidates and campaigns, Marco has gained a deep understanding of the democratic process, which has fueled his passion for civic engagement. He has equally developed a unique perspective on the political landscape in Canada, recognizing the challenges and opportunities that exist in each region and is keenly aware of the issues that matter most to voters.
Beyond politics, Marco is passionate about numerous causes, including Education, Tourism, Sustainable and Greener economies, and Immigration, among others. When he is not busy with politics, Marco sits on the community board for the Festival des rameurs, travels to new local or international communities, reads, builds new inventions with wood, plays guitar, and spends time with his fiancé Arianne and dog companion, Guacamole.
Marco’s personal and extensive professional experiences in provincial and federal politics have equipped him with a good understanding of the challenges facing the Restigouche-Chaleur region and the province of New Brunswick. His visionary ideas will be mobilized toward the enormous potential and growth of the region, driven by his unwavering commitment to creating a better future for his community and province.
Contact
Contact: Marco.LeBlanc@nbliberal.ca
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961
Listen to the speech. 
View related documents. 
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City
April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
No comments:
Post a Comment