Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Analysis of the media and public opinion on the closing days of the 1972 election. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145169
label
WHSF: Contested, 7-67
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145169
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 7-67
description
This file contains:
Analysis of the media and public opinion on the closing days of the 1972 election. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145169
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9703819716f5d331
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
7
67
Campaign
Other Document
Analysis of the media and public opinion on
the closing days of the 1972 election.
Handwritten notes added by unknown. 3 pgs.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Page 1 of 1
In reading Lou Cannon's piece in the Sunday Washington Post
I think we can get some guidance as to the handling of the press on
campaign matters which should be followed strictly.
I do not want people who talk about the campaign to make the
mistake of cutting off representatives of periodicals, TV and newspapers
simply because they are generally against us. Consequently, I do not
object to an article, appearing from time to time, in unfriendly publications
which is based on conversations with our campaign people. Having said
this, however, we need some completely ironclad rules with regard to
who talks to media representatives that we know are antagonistic to us.
First of all, it is vitally important that only the most intelligent
and sophisticated person on our campaign staff dare to go in the ring with
one of these people. Second, we should not waste time with one of them
at the expense of turning down interviews with media representatives who
are our friends. Third, even when our most intelligent people are meet-
ing with people like Cannon they must constantly keep in mind that they
are confronting a political enemy and that everything they say will, there-
fore, be used against us. I have to emphasize this over and over again
because we never seem to get it across to our people no matter how
many times they get burned.
The Cannon piece is the best example we can have of why these
rules should be rigidly adhered to. In the first place, while we know the
Washington Post is totally gainst us it is just as well to have a piece that
has some favorable points in it as well as completely negative ones.
Therefore, I have no objections to the fact that Cannon was given interviews
by the Campaign Committee. On the other hand, it waa a stupid mistake
-which must never be repeated - to allow Cannon to have the run of the
White House staff, the campaign staff and the National Committee staff
in getting his story together. The PR types representative of each of
- 2 -
these groups must have a rule that when media representatives, who
are antagonistic, come in for interviews they are treated courteously
but that only the top political man with great sophistication will be
allowed to talk to him. In addition, whenever that man talks to the
interviewer the press man should sit in on the interview so as to keep
it honest.
In that connection, incidentally, I was rather surprised to
find that we did not have a recording of Clark MacGregor's remarks
at the Press Club. It will be a very modest expense but it is
absolutely essential that a man with a small recording device go with
him everywhere he goes so that we have a record of what he says which
he can put out in the event that we want to correct a misquotation or
get out a story that was not covered adequately. The same, I think,
should be true of Dole. As you know we have always followed this
custom with regard to my own appearances.
Now, looking at the Cannon story from both the plus and the
minus standpoints, we find a good headline - "Nixon Running Scared, "
and a good thrust insofar as there being no complacency.
From a minus standpoint, it is obvious that Cannon had the
run of the shop and in addition to talking to Haldeman in the White
House and MacGregor at the Committee to Re-Elect, Dole at the
Republican National Committee, he talked to people up and down the
line and got a number of quotes that are both inaccurate and not helpful.
I am not, of course, referring to quotes that he has from Republican
Senators and Congressmen. We have no control whatsoever over this.
What I am referring to are quotes that he obviously had to get - since
he has it in quotation marks - - from people on the campaign staff.
For example, as I have often emphasized, it is a mistake
constantly to run down my previous campaigns. We should not contri-
bute to the myth that I did not work hard enough in 1960 and 1968. The
quotation to the effect that before the election in November I had gotten
so confident that I was working on my acceptance speech, taking rests,
etc., is totally inaccurate, as you know, and very harmful.
Holly
With regard to MacGregor's own interview, I would like for
you to get together with him and Dole on one point and to have a rule
enforced throughout the balance of the campaign. He was putting out
polls from California and Texas as well as Ohio and Illinois. There was
no reason why he should not have done this since we have not indicated
in the past what our policy was in this respect. However, under
- 3 -
absolutely no circumstances are any polls whatever to be put out
showing us ahead or behind in any of the major states without my
specific approval. This is an area where well-intentioned people
will put out a poll for what they think is a good reason - in this case
to knock down complacency -- but where later on they are going to
be asked for polls in these states when they might not want to put
them out. Also, I don't want the impression to get across the country
that we are conducting our campaign on the basis of polls rather than
on the basis of principles. I want you specifically to see that this is
brought up at the next meeting where Mitchell, Dole, MacGregor, et
al, are present. Mitchell, of course, would not have made this mistake
MacGregor made it only because of lack of experience.
Along the same line, I noted where the statement was made
that abortion was a minus issue for the President because polls showed
that a majority of women favored it. This obviously comes from the
Harper group in the Domestic Council Staff. I want you to get hold of
Ehrlichman and tell him that he is to see that absolutely no one in the
Domestic Council talks to anyone in the press without his specific
approval and then a press man from Ron's office is to be present.
Ehrlichman, of course, would not make such a stupid mistake and the
only way he can control others is to put a tight reign on them.
For example, Syndlinger ran into outraged reaction the evening
that the National Committee put out findings from their Platform
Committee poll to the effect that a majority of the members of the
Platform Committee found out that bussing was not a significant issue.
I want some discipline enforced in this respect for reasons which should
be obvious even to the most stupid of our people.
Another line which we should knock down is that there is no
grass roots support for the President and that we have to get "volunteers
one at a time. " This probably comes from Sears or somebody in that
group. The question here is not whether this may be true - and I doubt
if it is in terms of getting volunteers one at a time - but it plays right
into the hands of our political enemies. I could give other examples but
I close the memorandum with this admonition: Let's quit tackling our
own ball carrier. "