JIM LEHRER: Ben, what responsibilities do journalist have to protect national security secrets?

BEN BRADLEE: National security is a really big problem for journalists, because no journalist worth his salt wants to endanger the national security, but the law talks about anyone who endangers the security of the United States is going to go to jail. So, here you are, especially in the Pentagon. Some guy tells you something. He says that's a national security matter. Well, you're supposed to tremble and get scared and it never, almost never means the security of the national government.

More likely to mean the security or the personal happiness of the guy who is telling you something.

JIM LEHRER: Telling the story?

BEN BRADLEE: Because, you know, if he gets caught, why, he may not be so secure. He may be out on his tail.

JIM LEHRER: You must have had some tough calls.

BEN BRADLEE: Yeah, let me give you an example. The United States, at one point, developed a fantastic bell that they lowered to the bottom of the ocean floor to cover a Soviet cable and it was the cable through which the Soviet Government was communicating to its agents all over the world.

And, in fact, they were so sure it was secure that it wasn't even coded. So, when we lowered this bell--it was called Ivy Bells. They lowered it down over the Soviet cable. They put a cartridge of, you know, just like you do in your tape recorder. Some diver stuck it in there and recorded and recorded and recorded, until, you know, they ran out of tape and they sent another diver down.

The Post heard about this. I never heard of it and I was stunned. I was interested and I was also saying there is no damned way we were going to run this if it was still operating. So, we didn't run it. Anyway, I didn't get much of a beef out of Woodward. But a couple of months later, he came in and said, Ivy Bells is missing. And it turns out that the Soviets had discovered this bell over their cable and they said, well, you know, what the hell is this and removed it.

JIM LEHRER: The Soviets took the bell away?

BEN BRADLEE: The Soviets took the bell away.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, all right.

BEN BRADLEE: And the last time I heard, it was still on exhibition in Moscow. And so, then I thought that we were absolutely free to write it. You know, it wasn't risking any security. We just didn't have it. The Soviets had obviously taken it. So, they knew we didn't have it. We weren't telling them anything they didn't know. And Casey, the head of the CIA, raised absolute hell about it.

JIM LEHRER: Bill Casey?

BEN BRADLEE: Bill Casey. He came to see me, which is unheard of that the CIA director comes to see an editor.

JIM LEHRER: What was his argument? What was his point?

BEN BRADLEE: His argument was that, it was a matter of national security and we don't want to tell people that we had it or didn't have it and especially that we had lost it. And I said, well, you know, the Soviets must obviously know about it.

The White House got involved and called Woodward and me over. They said, you know, we're going to prosecute you, Section 18, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And we had developed that, that kind of rule, that anybody really threatened you like that, you would give them 24 hours to make their case. You'd withhold the story for 24 hours and then run it.

So, we waited for 24 hours and then they persuaded us to wait for another 24 hours. And damned if it wasn't on NBC News the second night. Now, they didn't do much with it, because they didn't know as much as we did. But it was an example of just, you know, I think an excess of caution on our part, which cost us the story.

JIM LEHRER: Did you ever run a story that was in that area and then regretted it afterward; that you thought that you might have hurt somebody--

BEN BRADLEE: No.

JIM LEHRER: --or hurt some cause or some--

BEN BRADLEE: No. Automatically, if anybody's life was involved, you never touched it. But they had to convince you that somebody's life was involved. You know, just because they said it didn't necessarily mean anything.

JIM LEHRER: And you're completely at ease with the journalists making this decision rather than the government?

BEN BRADLEE: No, I'm not completely at ease. I think you do so at your own risk.

JIM LEHRER: But let me reverse the thing. I mean, why did the public need to know about this bell?

BEN BRADLEE: Well, they, they--it seems to me that, there were two things about it that were extremely interesting. One is that we had that capability. I mean, that made me feel good. And the second thing, of course, is that we lost that capability.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

BEN BRADLEE: And it seems to me that the public can handle that. The public is perfectly grown up. It risked no one's life. It, it shows that the, the government, at least, some part of the government at one time was really intelligently working for our security. I thought it was, you know, a net plus.

JIM LEHRER: Is it the right instinct for somebody in journalism that, that when in doubt, publish?

BEN BRADLEE: I think the right instinct is when you're in doubt, pay attention to it.

JIM LEHRER: Pay attention to the doubt?

The Lack of Public Service
BEN BRADLEE: Yeah and listen to it. And I mean, I think maybe people don't know how many people are involved at a paper in a decision like that. I mean, you would, we would have seven or eight people in on that decision and arguing it both sides for maybe all day and, you know, at that time, years ago, probably half of them would have been in the military at one time in their lives. That's something that has changed. Very few of them are now.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a problem?

BEN BRADLEE: Well, I mean, they're missing one of the life experiences that were vitally important to this country and to the people in it. I can't believe that you have to be in the military to be a good journalist.

You have to be, but I think--I'll tell you what I think is the most important thing about it is the experience of someone who devoted x amount of years to service of his country. I think that's very important. If I could change one rule in America, it would be that everybody had to do that. I think that would be great.

JIM LEHRER: Mandatory national service of some kind?

BEN BRADLEE: Yes, great for the country and great for the people.

JIM LEHRER: Ben, what do you think about embedding reporters with military units, as was done in the Iraq War originally?

BEN BRADLEE: I think embedding is a mixed blessing. You're at the mercy of the commanding general, who decides whether your unit is going to play any role at all in the story. It would be great to be embedded with George Patton in World War Two, but what if you drew some general who was guarding, you know, an arsenal somewhere. You know, that's a ridiculous example, but sometimes, there's nothing happening. And if you're embedded, you can't get the hell out.

JIM LEHRER: What about the idea that we have fewer and fewer reporters with military experience; that embedding reporters at least exposes those journalists who get embedded to what it's like to be in the military, what it's like to be in a firefight, what it's like to walk up a hill with a pack on your back, what it's like to take a destroyer and try to, you know, put it to port?

BEN BRADLEE: You mean, you're saying it serves an educative function for the journalist itself.

JIM LEHRER: And out of that comes better journalism about the military.

BEN BRADLEE: It's a very expensive training program, but that is a hidden--a not so hidden benefit; sure, it does. And you see some of these guys now who come back from Iraq and they have seen lots of battle; they really have. And yet, you know, they're 12 years old. They have never--no, they're, you know, whether they're in their 30s or some of them in their 20s, probably.

JIM LEHRER: A lot of them have come back different people than when they went over there.

BEN BRADLEE: Yes, they have.

JIM LEHRER: Same experience as a soldier.

BEN BRADLEE: Well, that's a good thing. That's a terrific thing. I mean, that--if we don't learn by our experience, we don't learn.