us, as Malin Foster was making clear, for either of us in government or 

 those of us in the media to have a perfect grasp of either truth or 

 fa^. We both struggle, I think, within the confines of the system of 

 government we have to do something about trying to get to the people 

 what they need to know so that democracy can work. It's important, I 

 think, to be clear about the significance of the first amendment versus 

 any other particular amendment or part of our system of government 

 you may have caring for. The second amendment allows us to bear 

 arms, and I assume that to sportsmen, etc. and to the National Rifle 

 Association that's an extremely important amendment. However, that 

 amendment and no other part of our system can stand without the first 

 amendment. And it is critical that we focus on that. 



The first amendment has been something that even as a lawyer I 

 have not looked at much until the past six or eights months when the 

 press in Colorado decided to focus on the spending habits of the Land 

 Adminsitration, of which I'm a part of, and they began to monitor 

 travel and expenditures and everything else that anyone in government 

 seems to be doing under our Sunshine Law. Our law is basically from 

 the New Testament: "Wherever two or three are gathered together, 

 there shall the media be in their midst." And there is not much way to 

 avoid the sunshine, which is rather bright in Colorado normally, nor 

 the media being there finding out what it is that you're up to. Usual 

 reactions to having stories printed that are negative with respect to 

 you on the part of the administrator is an extremely hostile one. And 

 there is always the sense that if they saw it the way I see it, they 

 wouldn't have told it the way they told it. Well, tough. The public 

 and the media do not have some constitutional responsibility to see 

 issues the way the government bureaucrat happens to see them. It may 

 be unfortunate for the government bureaucrat, but they don't. And as 

 a matter of fact, the close scrutiny that the first amendment 

 guarantees, while it does not guarantee that that scrutiny will be 

 carried out with the highest level of responsibility or all the facts 

 present, is what keeps our form of government unique. 



When a television presentation like the 'Death of a Princess' can go 

 on public television as it did, threatening 18 percent of the imported oil 

 available to this country from Saudia Arabia funded by the government 

 and by the oil industries among other sources, with the then acting 

 Secretary of State writing a letter to PBS saying they shouldn't put it 

 on the air, and PBS still puts it on the air, this system of which we 

 are a part is healthy. The administrator may not like that that 

 happened. Oil has gone up $2 a barrel in Saudia Arabia but everyone 

 is saying of course, that had nothing to do with the showing of 'The 

 Death of a Princess'. But it was shown. And under tremendous 

 pressure, the first amendment worked because it is the first 

 amendment. I have not yet, although I'm sure it comes to all of us, 

 had the misfortune of having how we use money within the Office of 

 Energy Conservation--the expenditures of our office--displayed on the 

 first page of the paper with suggestions that we misuse funds. We 

 don't. We work on that every day. I assume somebody in my 44-or 

 45-member staff could make mistakes. I don't think they have though, 

 we watch it closely. But should it occur, I've got to have the 



