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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525977
label
Washington Professional Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi Professional Journalism Society, September 20, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525977
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Washington Professional Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi Professional Journalism Society, September 20, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. Information Agency. (8/24/1982 - 10/1/1999)
International relations
Public opinion polls
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525977
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-09-30
month
9
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-09-01
month
9
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5d7f5374fde29384
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D21, folder "Washington Professional Chapter
of Sigma Delta Chi Professional Journalism Society, September 20, 1966" of the Ford
Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
SEPT. 20
"THE POLL THAT NEVER WAS"
EXCERPT FROM A TALK BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.), MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO THE WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL CHAPTER OF SIGMA DELTA CHI,
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM SOCIETY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1966,
In the past few days there have been quite a few polls published that look
encouraging to Republicans. In Sunday's (Sept. 18) Washington Post, for example,
Dr. Gallup reports: "Johnson's Popularity Drops Further, Now at 48%" and just above
it: "Democrats Losing Ground Rapidly As Elections Approach," according to Lou Harris.
Mr. Harris finds that nationally, including the once Solid South, voters divide 52
to 48 per cent in favor of Democratic candidates for Congress, which is a gain for
Republicans of three percentage points over a month ago and of five percentage points
since the start of this session of Congress. So I think we have had some success in
getting our message to the people, even though we are outnumbered more than two-to-
one, and I think there is a real chance of restoring two-party government in Washington
this November.
I know you came here to hear partisan opinions and predictions about this
year's election from Sen. Morton and myself, and I will be glad to oblige you in the
question period, to which I propose to yield most of my time. I also have the hunch
you don't want to hear any standard campaign speech any more than I feel like giving
one in this congenial setting. So I would like to discuss with you just briefly--and
I don't know whether this is a question of journalism, history or political science--
what seems to me to be a very intriguing story. It's a story that hasn't been
written yet, and it might be called the mystery of "The Poll That Never Was."
This should be of particular interest to Sigma Delta Chi because it involves
some of your members and a cause in which you have been in the vanguard: the Freedom
of Information bill which we enacted at this session. It should also be of interest
because we all know who is the chief poll-watcher in this town, and how he often
pulls polls of his own out of his coat pocket to counter unflattering polls produced
by published surveys.
Most of you will remember the big rhubarb about polls during the 1960 Presi-
dential campaign. But to refresh your memory, let me read from an unbiased source--
Ted Sorenson--in his book, "Kennedy."
'One major issue in the debates, which related to Kennedy's
entire campaign and which worked to his advantage, was that of American
prestige abroad. The decline in that prestige, as evidenced by a
variety of riots and adverse reactions in foreign capitals, fit well
into Kennedy's major themes. Nixon retorted that our prestige was at
an all-time high. Upon learning that the administration had refused
to release to the Congress certain USIA overseas surveys on this
subject, Kennedy called upon Nixon to show his influence and answer
Kennedy's charges by obtaining their release. Nixon said the polls
supported his contentions--but the polls remained secret.
"In October Mike Feldman in Washington was told he could
obtain copies of the polls from a source outside the USIA. He tele-
phoned me about his acquisition, and I asked him to forward them to
me at our next overnight stop. The polls strongly backed the Senator's
position and made Nixon's claims about them look like deliberate
misinformation. To avoid charges that he improperly obtained classi-
fied material, Kennedy turned the polls over to the New York Times,
which immediately printed them without mention of how they had been
acquired, and the Senator was then free to quote them as official
proof of our plummeting prestige. An Eisenhower aide promptly asked
USIA Director George Allen to issue a statement saying his polls showed
American prestige at a record high, but Allen refused, and the issue
continued to help Kennedy."
When Senator Kennedy became President Kennedy, however, the press insisted he
release the official foreign opinion polls that he had severely criticized President
Eisenhower for withholding. He did so, on the day of his first State of the Union
message. Needless to say, they had been so thoroughly leaked they got very little
attention, but precedent had been set.
(MORE)
Digitized from Box D21 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, questions were raised about U. S. prestige
and the press demanded the official polls. Refused at USIA, they carried the battle
to the Moss subcommittee--which had been most active in battling Executive Branch
secrecy during the Eisenhower years, and a long argument ensued. This was resolved
in February, 1963, by an agreement between Congressman Moss and Ed Murrow, then
Director of USIA, to declassify these confidential government polls after they had
mellowed for two years. A batch of two-year-old polls were then released, but they
covered only the first month of the Kennedy Administration. Later, when President
Kennedy's prestige abroad soared following the Cuban missile crisis in the 1962
Congressional campaign, this age-dated agreement stood in the way of making the
official polls public. So, they were again leaked to the New York Times.
However, the Moss-Murrow agreement still stands, officially, and has been
reaffirmed by every USIA Director since. Carl Rowan, one of your S.D.X. award
winners, who tried to do an honest job when LBJ gave him this difficult assignment,
came to Congress asking more funds for such polls, and testified in March, 1964:
"The great advance in 1963 was the successful completion of
the First World Survey of public opinion. A similar but more compre-
hensive survey is under way this year."
Mr. Rowan asked, and got, additional appropriations for the Third World Survey,
which was to be taken during calendar 1965, and a Fourth World Survey scheduled for
calendar 1966, that is, this year. Under the Moss-Murrow formula, these would have
been declassified and made available to the press and public in mid-1967 and mid-1968.
Meanwhile, however, USIA got a new director, Leonard Marks, who is, I under-
stand, a member of this chapter of S.D.X. as well as being a very able lawyer. The
First and Second World Surveys, which covered only the first few months of Mr. Johnson's
Presidency after President Kennedy's assassination, were duly declassified in 1965
and 1966. I have examined them and, in sum, they show American prestige on a graphic
curve going upward after the Cuban Missile Crisis and off the edge of the page into
1964. There they stop. The Third World Survey, taken in 1964, is not supposed to be
released until next year, after the November elections, and it would be the first to
give any valid reading on what public opinion abroad--particularly among our key
NATO allies--thinks about President Johnson's leadership. As of now, there is no
official measurement of American prestige under LBJ to be compared with the high and
low points of the Kennedy and Eisenhower Presidencies.
Now here I am going to speculate a little. The Administration has that Third
World Survey, and I understand others, which it has not released nor even "leaked."
As a matter of practical politics, it must not show a very favorable comparison with
the Kennedy surveys--and one may sympathize with the President for having enough
trouble in domestic popularity polls with the Kennedys.
But what about the Fourth World Survey? This one would be due for public
inspection in 1968, and President Johnson surely has that year ringed on his calendar.
Well, that is the poll which I referred to earlier as "The Poll That Never Was."
Here again I am speculating, but I am sure Mr. Marks gives good counsel to his client,
and his boss, and that having seen the findings of the still-secret Third World
Survey, the Administration decided to call the whole thing off. I don't believe
there will ever be a Fourth World Survey of Foreign Opinion of the United States,
taken during the escalation year of 1966 and due for public consumption in the
Presidential election year of 1968. I imagine Mr. Johnson has read Ted Sorenson's
book, too.
Still, I think we ought to know where we stand in our role as leader of the
free world. I think there is abundant evidence, in every day's news, that U.S.
prestige has eroded dangerously, particularly in Western Europe. President Johnson
has been unable to get any of our Western Allies to help us fight the war against
Communist aggression in Vietnam. In fact, he has not even been able to get them to
stop helping the enemy. Perhaps we cannot fairly blame LBJ for his difficulties with
Gen. DeGaulle; but what about the others who responded, in token at least, during the
Korean conflict?
I believe the American people share my feeling that President Johnson, in his
preoccupation with the Vietnam War and the Great Society, has neglected our important
role as leader of the Free World.
In a nationwide sampling taken last June by the independent Opinion Research
Corp. of Princeton, New Jersey, for the Republican National Committee, potential
voters were asked to rate President Johnson's performance on a variety of issues,
(MORE)
-3-
among them "improving U. S. prestige throughout the world." The results show a steady
decline in the confidence of his countrymen.
Very Good,
Not So Good,
Fairly Good
Poor
No Opinion
July, 1964
49%
31%
20%
August, 1965
45%
34%
21%
June, 1966
38%
48%
14%
Asked "Does the U. S. have more or fewer reliable friends around the world now
than before Johnson became President?" the verdict was even more damaging:
More Friends
9%
Fewer Friends
46%
About the Same
31%
No Opinion
14%
There are, so I am told, official surveys in the hands of the Administration
which will confirm the alarming fact that U.S. prestige has been plummeting abroad
due to the indecision, incredibility and inattention of the Johnson Presidency. As
an American, I do not rejoice in this. But I think we should have the facts and get
on with the task of repairing the damage.
I hope that the curiosity of the Washington press on this important issue will
be as intense and impartial as it was in 1960 and in 1962. Although I'm aware that
the new Freedom of Information Law does not take effect until after the November
elections, this may be a good test of its spirit. Why should the Third World Survey
of public opinion about U.S. aims during the Johnson Administration remain secret
while the ups and downs of the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations have been
spread upon the public record? What is there to hide?
####
Corrected Copy
"THE POLL THAT NEVER WAS"
EXCERPT FROM A TALK BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.), MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO THE WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL CHAPTER OF SIGMA DELTA CHI,
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM SOCIETY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1966.
In the past few days there have been quite a few polls published that look
encouraging to Republicans. In Sunday's (Sept. 18) Washington Post, for example,
Dr. Gallup reports: "Johnson's Popularity Drops Further, Now at 48%" and just above
it: "Democrats Losing Ground Rapidly As Elections Approach," according to Lou Harris.
Mr. Harris finds that nationally, including the once Solid South, voters divide 52
to 48 per cent in favor of Democratic candidates for Congress, which is a gain for
Republicans of three percentage points over a month ago and of five percentage points
since the start of this session of Congress. So I think we have had some success in
getting our message to the people, even though we are outnumbered more than twe-to-
one, and I think there is a real chance of restoring two-party government in Washington
this November.
I know you came here to hear partisan opinions and predictions about this
year's election from Sen. Scott and myself, and I will be glad to oblige you in the
question period, to which I propose to yield most of my time. I also have the hunch
you don't want to hear any standard campaign speech any more than I feel like giving
one in this congenial setting. So I would like to discuss with you just briefly--and
I don't know whether this is a question of journalism, history or political science--
what seems to me to be a very intriguing story. It's a story that hasn't been
written yet, and it might be called the mystery of "The Poll That Never Was."
This should be of particular interest to Sigma Delta Chi because it involves
some of your members and a cause in which you have been in the vanguard: the Freedom
of Information bill which we enacted at this session. It should also be of interest
because we all know who is the chief watcher in this town, and how he often
pulls polls of his own out of his coat pocket to counter inflattering polls produced
by published surveys.
Most of you will remember the big rhubarb about polls during the 1960 Presi-
dential campaign. But to refresh your memory, let me read from unbiased source--
Ted Sorenson--in his book, "Kennedy
"One major issue in the debates, which related to Kennedy
entire campaign and which worked to his advantage, was that of American
prestige abroad The decline in that prestige, as evidenced by a
variety of riots and adverse reactions in foreign capitals, fit well
into Kennedy's major themes. Nixon retorted that our prestige was at
an all-time high. Upon learning that the administration had refused
to release to the Congress certain USIA overseas surveys. on this
subject, Kennedy called upon Nixon to show his influence and answer
Kennedy's charges by obtaining their release. Nixon said the polls
supported his contentions--but the polls remained secret.
"In October Mike Feldman in Washington was told he could
obtain copies of the polls from a source outside the USIA. He tele-
phoned me about his acquisition, and I asked him to forward them to
me at our next overnight stop. The polls strongly backed the Senator's
position and made Nixon's claims about them look like deliberate
misinformation. To avoid charges that he improperly obtained classi-
fied material, Kennedy turned the polls over to the New York Times,
which immediately printed them without mention of how they had been
acquired, and the Senator was then free to quote them as official
proof of our plummeting prestige. An Eisenhower aide promptly asked
USIA Director George Allen to issue a statement saying his polls showed
American prestige at a record high, but Allen refused, and the issue
continued to help Kennedy."
When Senator Kennedy became President Kennedy, however, the press insisted he
release the official foreign opinion polls that he had severely criticized President
Eisenhower for withholding. He did so, on the day of his first State of the Union
message. Needless to say, they had been so thoroughly leaked they got very little
FORD
attention, but precedent had been set.
LIBRARI
(MORE)
-2-
Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, questions were raised about U. S. prestige
and the press demanded the official polls. Refused at USIA, they carried the battle
to the Moss subcommittee--which had been most active in battling Executive Branch
secrecy during the Eisenhower years, and a long argument ensued. This was resolved
in February, 1963, by an agreement between Congressman Moss and Ed Murrow, then
Director of USIA, to declassify these confidential government polls after they had
mellowed for two years. A batch of two-year-old polls were then released, but they
covered only the first month of the Kennedy Administration. Later, when President
Kennedy's prestige abroad soared following the Cuban missile crisis in the 1962
Congressional campaign, this age-dated agreement stood in the way of making the
official polls public. So, they were again leaked to the New York Times.
However, the Moss-Murrow agreement still stands, officially, and has been
reaffirmed by every USIA Director since. Carl Rowan, one of your S.D.X. award
winners, who tried to do an honest job when LBJ gave him this difficult assignment,
came to Congress asking more funds for such polls, and testified in March, 1964:
"The great advance in 1963 was the successful completion of
the First World Survey of public opinion. A similar but more compre-
hensive survey is under way this year."
Mr. Rowan asked, and got, additional appropriations for the Third World Survey,
which was to be taken during calendar 1965, and a Fourth World Survey scheduled for
calendar 1966, that is, this year. Under the Moss-Murrow formula, these would have
been declassified and made available to the press and public in mid-1967 and mid-1968.
Meanwhile, however, USIA got a new director, Leonard Marks, who is, I under-
stand, a member of this chapter of S.D.X. as well as being a very able lawyer. The
First and Second World Surveys, which covered only the first few months of Mr. Johnson's
Presidency after President Kennedy's assassination, were duly declassified in 1965
and 1966. I have examined them and, in sum, they show American prestige on a graphic
curve going upward after the Cuban Missile Crisis and off the edge of the page into
1964. There they stop. The Third World Survey, taken in 1965, is not supposed to be
released until next year, after the November elections, and it would be the first to
give any valid reading on what public opinion abroad--particularly among our key
NATO allies--thinks about President Johnson's leadership. As of now, there is no
official measurement of American prestige under LBJ to be compared with the high and
low points of the Kennedy and Eisenhower Presidencies.
Now here I am going to speculate a little. The Administration has that Third
World Survey, and I understand others, which it has not released nor even "leaked."
As a matter of practical politics, it must not show a very favorable comparison with
the Kennedy surveys--and one may sympathize with the President for having enough
trouble in domestic popularity polls with the Kennedys.
But what about the Fourth World Survey? This one would be due for public
inspection in 1968, and President Johnson surely has that year ringed on his calendar.
Well, that is the poll which I referred to earlier as "The Poll That Never Was."
Here again I am speculating, but I am sure Mr. Marks gives good counsel to his client,
and his boss, and that having seen the findings of the still-secret Third World
Survey, the Administration decided to call the whole thing off. I don't believe
there will ever be a Fourth World Survey of Foreign Opinion of the United States,
taken during the escalation year of 1966 and due for public consumption in the
Presidential election year of 1968. I imagine Mr. Johnson has read Ted Sorenson's
book, too.
Still, I think we ought to know where we stand in our role as leader of the
free world. I think there is abundant evidence, in every day's news, that U.S.
prestige has eroded dangerously, particularly in Western Europe. President Johnson
has been unable to get any of our Western Allies to help us fight the war against
Communist aggression in Vietnam. In fact, he has not even been able to get them to
stop helping the enemy. Perhaps we cannot fairly blame LBJ for his difficulties with
Gen. DeGaulle; but what about the others who responded, in token at least, during the
Korean conflict?
I believe the American people share my feeling that President Johnson, in his
preoccupation with the Vietnam War and the Great Society, has neglected our important
role as leader of the Free World.
In a nationwide sampling taken last June by the independent Opinion Research
Corp. of Princeton, New Jersey, for the Republican National Committee, potential
voters were asked to rate President Johnson's performance on a variety of issues,
(MORE)
-3-
among them "improving U. S. prestige throughout the world." The results show a steady
decline in the confidence of his countrymen.
Very Good,
Not So Good,
Fairly Good
Poor
No Opinion
July, 1964
49%
31%
20%
August, 1965
45%
34%
21%
June, 1966
38%
48%
14%
Asked "Does the U. S. have more or fewer reliable friends around the world now
than before Johnson became President?" the verdict was even more damaging:
More Friends
9%
Fewer Friends
46%
About the Same
31%
No Opinion
14%
There are, so I am told, official surveys in the hands of the Administration
which will confirm the alarming fact that U.S. prestige has been plummeting abroad
due to the indecision, incredibility and inattention of the Johnson Presidency. As
an American, I do not rejoice in this. But I think we should have the facts and get
on with the task of repairing the damage.
I hope that the curiosity of the Washington press on this important issue will
be as intense and impartial as it was in 1960 and in 1962. Although I'm aware that
the new Freedom of Information Law does not take effect until after the November
elections, this may be a good test of its spirit. Why should the Third World Survey
of public opinion about U.S. aims during the Johnson Administration remain secret
while the ups and downs of the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations have been
spread upon the public record? What is there to hide?
####