substance as an administrator to say, "That's the system I'm a part of 

 working." If things are gotten wrong, it is my responsibility of 

 course, to point out where incorrect statements where made. But it is 

 not my responsibility to tell the media how they should feel about the 

 way I, as an administrator, determine to run programs. It is my 

 responsibility to simply tell the truth and to have the facts available. 

 And it seems to me that that's a burden that comes to all of us because 

 the first amendment is first. And it gives protection, whether the 

 reporting is accurate or not to prior restraint. 



Now in the issue of "should a reporter bring you a story that he's 

 doing and let you look at it and deal with it," you must remember that 

 when in the role of administrator with, in my case the level of cabinet 

 officer in state government and energy policy advisor to the governor, 

 I want to take the initiative to say, "You ought to bring a story to 

 me." But, that is the cloud of prior restraint that is against the law 

 of the United States. If the reporter, out of his responsibility, wants 

 to come and say "Let's go over this and make sure I've got the facts 

 right," that's a whole different thing. But I have no right under law 

 to say, "You shouldn't be putting these things out without bringing it 

 by for me to check." That isn't how our system works, from the first 

 article of that system on down. One of the things that keeps, I 

 believe, the public administrator in good shape--and Malin's story about 

 the person who came to him to talk to him about a mistake that was 

 made--is candor. And candor basically requires risk. And since all of 

 us are fallible, the taking of risk means that occasionally we're going to 

 get burned. That, I think, is the price we pay for being at the public 

 trough and having a public job--not having to show a profit and 

 breaking our necks in the private sector or whatever. But when you 

 take the responsibility for administering a function of public trust, 

 candor is one of the costs of that responsibility. And we pay it 

 whenever we make mistakes, but candor is more important as our tool in 

 doing our job than the risk of making mistakes, and we have to get 

 that straight. 



John Anderson is making a heck of a run at the presidency as a 

 third-party candidate and that's unheard of, as you know, in this 

 country. For 100 years it has just been considered impossible and he's 

 doing it, not because people agree with 98 percent of what he's saying, 

 but because of the level of candor he is exercising in what he's doing. 

 And he can say he has more latitude and more freedom than either the 

 president or Reagan or anybody else. But candor is showing up to be 

 a strong tool on his part. You're finding people supporting him even 

 though they don't agree with some of his positions. I think as a tool 

 for the public administrator, candor is a way that you become credible 

 and as you fulfill your responsibility as a constitutional officer within a 

 level of government in this country. The issue of being direct and of 

 telling the truth and of providing the facts, is so critical that I think 

 all of us have to spend a lot of time seeing how that is carrried out. I 

 am not so concerned for instance, to see a story being done on energy 

 in Colorado when I know one is being done before it goes in the 

 newspaper as I am of offering the opportunity for anyone treating a 



