On Monday evening Pierre Salinger told the Women's National Democratic Club that there is "nothing more vital in government than the freest possible flow of information." Two days later it was revealed that the newly-sworn director of the United States Information Agency had attempted (unsuccessfully) to suppress the showing in Britain of a controversial television documentary on the plight of migrant laborers in this country.

The contradition between the words of one high government official and the actions of another is only one of the ironies of this inexplicable blunder. The most implausible aspect is the identity of the would-be censor: Edward R. Murrow. During his 25 years as a radio and television news commentator Murrow consistently up-held the principles of freedom of information. When some of his programs were criticized on the grounds that they portrayed the U.S. in an unfavorable light, he replied--quite correctly--that the faults as well as the virtues of the country must be exposed if other nations are to retain their confidence in us. Only last week he told a Senate committee that "we shall operate on the basis of truth."

Since the accuracy of the film has been questioned, it is significant as well as ironic that it was produced by Murrow himself while on the staff of CBS news. In defending his suppression, Murrow contended that he had produced the film "solely for domestic presentation." This is a feeble excuse. If Murrow means that the grim portrayal of the migrant worker was exaggerated, he should say so. However, in view of the unquestioned integrity of Murrow's previous documentaries, this hypothesis seems highly untenable.

On the other hand, it seems equally improbable that Murrow was forced into his action by higher government officials. Murrow is almost universally regarded as a man of principle, one who would not knuckle under to official pressure, especially on his first day in office. Moreover, the attempted suppression of the film is completely out of line with other recent Administration decisions. Only last week the President abandoned the silly (and perhaps unconstitutional) program of intercepting mail entering the country from behind the Iron Curtain.

These contradictions aside, the indefensibility of the attempted censorship is fairly obvious. Arbitrary government regulation of documents leaving the country for circulation in other nations cannot be reconciled with the ideals of American democracy. In addition, attempting to cover up the unpleasant aspects of American life is as unwise as it is futile. Deficiencies exist and cannot, for long, be hidden by suppression. Whatever his original intentions, Murrow has provided ammunition for those who depict the U.S. as a country where freedom is a word to be talked about abroad and an ideal to be defied here.

Neither expediency nor principle justifies Murrow's action. If there is an explanation, it should be given, so as to resolve this most un-ingenuous paradox.