take-over of South Vietnam; and he told a little anecdote about avery, very esponsible"fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation All in all, Mr. Harrison offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the polic ies outlined by the president of the United states. Where the President had issued a ca ll for unity Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America's chief negotia tor at the Paris peace talks --a period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest mil itary concessions in the history of warf are for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridges Ancient Mariner, Mr. Harrima seems to be under some heavy compu ls ion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen and the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires Now every american has a right to disagree with the president of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement But the president of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President's words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even hen Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitlers Germany, he didnt have to conte nd with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When president Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action hed asked america to follow The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every presidential address, but, more importantly wield a free hand in selecting presenting and interpreting the great issues in our nation First, let's def ine that power. At least 40 million Americans every night, it's estimated, watch the network news Seven million of them view A B C, the remainder being div ided between N B C. and C B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Rogers observatio what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing mil lions of Americans it's what they see and hear on their television sets Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen commentators, and executive producetake-over of South Vietnam; and he told a little anecdote about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation. All in all, Mr. Harrison of fered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the United States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him. A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America’s chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks -- a period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, Mr. Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires. Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested. When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow. The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a f ree hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power. At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, f or millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets. Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers