ry, the Washington Post, New YorknTimes, Los Angeles Times, and thenmajor networks have defied establishednlaw, court orders, grand jury subpoenas,nmilitary secrecy, and elected officials.nPerhaps most notorious was then1981 Janet Cooke case, when WashingtonnPost editors defiantly proclaimednthat they would stand on theirnFirst Amendment rights in refusingnto reveal the whereabouts of theneight-year-old heroin addict describednin Cooke’s feature article—unhl itnwas finally discovered that the “boy”nwas a figment of Cooke’s well-paidnimagination.nThe public’s right to know is apparentlynselective. It doesn’t cover thenPost, nor does it cover CBS, whichnrequested the court to prevent GeneralnWestmoreland from publicizing any ofnthe information the network wasnforced to turn over to him. Manynjournalists now believe that their constitutionalnstatus is so holy that theynmay employ subterfuge and deception.nWitness the recent case reported in thenNew York Times: a newspaper writernposed as a morgue attendant in ordernto get an exclusive interview with thenfamily of a murder victim. In a candidn1984 editorial entitied “First AmendmentnJunkies,” The New Republicnsummed up the situation.nIn recent years, journalists havenasserted a constitutional rightnnot to testify in front of grandnjuries, not to submit to searchnwarrants, not to givendepositions in civil lawsuits,nand not to have their notes andndocuments subpoenaed. . . .nBut by definition, suchnexemptions from the normalnduties of citizenship cannot bengranted to everyone.nThe privileges claimed by journalistsnresemble the rights enjoyed by thenclergy at the greatest extent of theirnpower. For three centuries the kings ofnEngland had to wage an unremittingnstruggle against a large clerical classnthat claimed immunity from the royalnlaw. In some cases, the flunky whonswept out the church could claim thenright of clergy to be tried in an ecclesiasticalncourt, even for crimes like rape.nIn America, clergymen have nevernenjoyed a very privileged status (evenndraft exemption was granted by Con-n”With the debate raging over “Star Wars,”nit is a relief that a distinguished scientistnhas now explained the subject in a booknthat is brief, lucid and comprehensible.”n-The Wall Street JournalnHow To Make NuclearnWeapons ObsoletenBy ROBERT JASTROWnFounder of NASAs Institute for Space Studies andnFirst Ciiairman of tine NASA Lunar Exploration Committeen”Robert Jastrow may have written the mostnimportant book of the twentieth century.”n—Jeffrey Hart, Humari EventsnAdvances ih modern science give usna non-nuclear defense against missiles,”nsays Robert Jastrow in How to MakenNuclear Weapons Obsolete. “No developmentncould be more favorable to thencause of ending the nuclear arms race.nIf both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have an effectivendefense against missiles, bothnnations must then recognize the futility ofnnna continued competition in buildingnweapons of mass destruction.”nRenowned for his ability to make thenmost complex scientific matters understandablento a lay audience, Dr Jastrownexplains what Star Wars is, how it works,nand how it can protect the world from thennuclear menace.nH M H AT YOUR BOOKSTORE, OR USE THIS COUPON H H BnMODERN SCIENCE LIBRARYnRO. Box 1168, White River Junction, VT 05001nPlease send me copies of How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete atn$15.95 per copy. Enclosed is my check for $ or please cfiarge myn• MasterCard D VisanMnnCity RtfltP 7ipnVermont residents please add 4% sales tax. COMnAPRIL 1986/57n