Liberals just love the Washington Post. And why not? With respect to almost all “social issues”, the Post [like the New York Times] can be depended on to toe the progressive line.
On the other hand, as with the New York Times, when it comes to Wall Street at home and American foreign policy abroad, both papers are solidly embedded in the ruling class. Here they are part and parcel of the military industrial complex; of policies that basically revolve around the interest of those corporations that butter their bread. Through, for example, advertising. The media industrial complex in America is there for all to see. The dots are clearly there to be connected.
Consider:
americanfreepress.net/washington … g-silence/
politico.com/blogs/media/20 … men-124074
This is simply how “the system” works. But don’t expect editorials in the Washington Post or the Times to actually own up to this. Let alone it being a focus in the movie rendition.
You see it today with Trump v. Press. In some respects, the media industrial complex go after him. But in other respects they will almost certainly leave him alone. To the extent that Trump attempts to reconfigure such things as “free trade” or the liberal rendition of American foreign policy, he is pummeled. But make no mistake that with respect to the war economy and a foreign policy that revolves around securing cheap labor, natural resources and lucrative markets, Trump and the Post are basically just two sides of the same crony capitalist coin.
Newspapers, after all, are a business. Businesses revolve around the bottom line. And that intertwines them with, among others, bankers and advertisers and shareholders. Only this business revolves around selling “the news”. The potential for a conflict of interest here is built right into the relationships themselves. And, occasionally, we are nudged in that direction here. But nudged is all.
Anyway, you tell me: Is the United States government telling us lies about the “war on terror” today? In, say, the manner in which they lied to us about the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?
IMDb
[b]In his memoir, the real Daniel Ellsberg claimed that walking out of RAND with the Pentagon Papers (and returning them) over the course of months was a calculated risk, since he had never had his bag checked by security, but he did not know for sure if it was not policy to do so.
In the scene showing Vietnam War protesters, the words spoken by one of them are taken from Mario Savio’s “Put your bodies upon the gears” speech during the 1964 Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley.
Though the movie is not about Watergate, it is fitting that the movie ends with the depiction of the Watergate break-in, since it is arguably true that the Watergate break-in would not have happened without the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Nixon’s creation of the infamous “Plumbers” group was a direct response to the leaking of the Pentagon Papers (the Plumbers first major effort being breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in an effort to find discrediting information on him). It would be the major figures in the Plumbers who would hatch and execute the plot to break into the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate.
The New York Times had published the Pentagon Papers before The Washington Post and had set the stage for legal battle that ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the newspaper in the the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) . In June 2011, the entire Pentagon Papers were declassified and made public. In the 6-3 Court decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”[/b]
trivia at IMDb: imdb.com/title/tt6294822/tr … tt_trv_trv
at wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Post_(film
trailer: youtu.be/mfe0bnCiVDM
The Post [2017]
Directed by Steven Spielberg
[b]Soldier [in the field]: Who’s the long hair?
Soldier: That’s Ellsberg–works with Langsdale at the Embassy. He’s observing.
…
McNamara: I’ve read every one of Ellsberg’s reports, and I’m telling you, it’s just not the case. Dan, you know Mr. Komer. He’s been discussing the war with the President and, well, his sense is that we’ve made real progress over the past year, but I’ve been doing my own review and it seems to me that things have gotten worse. But neither of us have been in the field-- you have–you’re the one who knows so, what do you say? Are things better or worse?
Ellsberg: Well, Mr. Secretary, what I’m most impressed by is how much things are the same.
…
Reporter: Mr. Secretary, I’m wondering if the trip left you optimistic or pessimistic about our prospects in this war and our ability to win it?
McNamara: Well, you asked whether I was optimistic or pessimistic. Today, I can tell you that military progress over the past 12 months has exceeded our expectations. We’re very encouraged by what we’re seeing in Vietnam. In every respect, we’re making progress.[/b]
What is known as a government lie.
[b]Man [handing Times employee a folder marked “Project X”]: Tell 'em it’s from Sheehan. Don’t walk.
…
Ben: Intern! You uh, workin’ on anything important, chief?
Intern: Uh, no, Mr. Bradlee. Well, everything we do is important…at The Post.
Ben: Here’s $40, I want you to take the first train up to New York and go to the-- go to The Times building on 43rd—don’t tell ‘em who you work for but find a reporter by the name of Sheehan.
Intern: Uh, Neil Sheehan?
Ben: Yeah, yeah, find out what Neil Sheehan is workin’ on.
Intern: Is that legal?
Ben: Well, what is it you think we do here for a living, kid?
…
Arthur [after a board meeting]: Kay, it’s your decision. But in my opinion, if you want this to be more than a little family paper, it has to be more than a little family business.
…
Kay: The Nixon White House is nothing if not vindictive. Just this morning, they barred us from covering Tricia Nixon’s wedding.[/b]
Nixon and the Post then, Trump and the Post now. Only back then the Post was still basically just a “local paper”.
[b]McNamara [at Kay’s home]: Kay, I wanted to tell you and I want you to hear from me first. There’s an article about me coming out in The Times tomorrow. It’s not flattering.
…
Kay [on the phone]: I’m sorry to bother you so late, but listen. Were you able to make any headway with Mr. Sheehan?
Bob: No, no, no. I haven’t.
Kay: I just had an odd conversation with Bob McNamara. And…I think The Times may have a big story tomorrow. You know, he wouldn’t give me any details, but Bob said it was quite… detrimental to him.
…
Newspaper headline in the New York Times, June 13, 1971: Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement
…
Nixon [on phone or from the tapes]: Nothing else of interest in the world?
Haig: Yes, sir, very significant this uh, goddamn New York Times expose of the most highly-classified documents of the war.
Nixon: You mean that…that was leaked out of the Pentagon? The-the whole study that was done for McNamara. This is a devastating, uh, security breach of the greatest magnitude of anything I’ve ever seen.
Haig: Well…Well, what, uh, what’s being done about it, then?[/b]
Of course today we know damn well what was done about it.
[b]Nixon [on phone or from the tapes]: Uh, Henry, that thing to me is just unconscionable-- this is treasonable action on the part of the bastards that put it out.
Kissinger: I’m absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws.
Nixon: People have got to be put to the torch for this sort of thing.
…
Newspaper man [reading the Times piece]: Christ! McNamara knew we couldn’t win in '65-- that’s six goddamn years ago.
Ben: Well, at least we got the wedding.
…
Newspaper man: Ben, come on, it’s one story.
Ben: No, it’s 7,000 pages detailing how the White House has been lying about the Vietnam war for 30 years. It’s Truman and Eisenhower and…Jack…LBJ lying…lying about Vietnam. And you think that’s one story?
…
Kay: Bob McNamara’s an old friend. He’s going through a lot in his life right now. I just…he’s probably said all he wants to say. Why, do you think?
Ben: Why? Why? Why is he talking to you?
Kay: Well, I just told you he’s my friend, and…
Ben: Well, is he talking to any other friends?
Kay: I’m not sure I appreciate the implication of what you just…
Ben: McNamara is talking to you because you are the publisher of…
Kay: That’s not true! -
Ben: …of The Washington Post.
Kay: No. That is not why.
Ben: Because he wants you to bail him out.
Kay: No, there’s no ulterior…
Ben: Because he wants you on his side.
Kay: No, Ben, that’s not my role. You know that. I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to write about him. Just as I wouldn’t take it upon myself to tell him he should hand over a classified study, which would be a crime, by the way, just so he can serve as your source.
Ben: Our source, Katharine.
Kay: No, I–no. I’m not. I’m not going to ask Bob for the study.
Ben: I…I get it, you have a relationship with Bob McNamara. But don’t you think you have an obligation as well to the paper and to the public?
Kay: Let me ask you something. Was that how you felt when you were palling around with Jack Kennedy? Where was your sense of duty then? I don’t recall you pushing him particularly hard on anything.
Ben: I pushed Jack when I had to…I never pulled any punches.
Kay: Is that right? 'Cause you used to dine at the White House once a week. All the trips to Camp David. Oh, and that drunken birthday cruise on the Sequoia you told me about. Hard to believe you would’ve gotten all those invitations if you didn’t pull a few punches.
…
Newscaster: Street protests broke out today across the country after the publication of more excerpts of a classified Department of Defense study in The New York Times. The study commissioned by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara has ignited further debate over the ongoing war in Vietnam. As it makes clear that Kennedy and Johnson as well as Eisenhower and Truman deeply misled the country on Vietnam.
…
Nixon [on phone or from the tapes]: You know, Sheehan’s a bastard-- he’s been a bastard for years.
Ehrlichman: Mr. President, the Attorney General’s called a couple of times about these New York Times stories.
Nixon: You mean to prosecute The Times? Hell, my view is to prosecute the goddamn pricks that gave it to him.
Ehrlichman: If you can find out who that is.
Nixon: Yeah, I know. I mean, could The Times be prosecuted?
Ehrlichman: Apparently so.
Nixon: As far as The Times is concerned, hell, they’re our enemies, I think we just ought to do it.
…
Kay [on the phone]: Hey, listen, I’ve…I’ve got tomorrow’s headlines. John Mitchell contacted The Times, seems the President’s going to seek an injunction
Ben: No shit! This means we’re in the goddamn ballgame. Because if The Times get shut down…
Kay: If they get shut down, there is no ballgame. Ballgame’s over.
Ben: But Katharine, any-anybody would kill to have a crack at this.
Kay: Well, sure, but not if it means breaking the law. If a federal judge stops The Times from publishing, well, I don’t see how we could publish–even if we could get hold of a copy.
[Ben says nothing]
Kay: So. Ben? You have something?
Ben: No.
Kay: Okay, so then there’s nothing to talk about, really.
Ben: No. Nothing to talk about at all, but uh… But thank you for the tip.
…
Cronkite [on TV]: The New York Times late today was barred at least until Saturday from publishing any more classified documents dealing with the cause and conduct of the Vietnam war. The Times, true to its word, said it would abide by the decision of federal judge Murray Gurfein but will resist a permanent injunction at a hearing Friday. The Nixon administration had charged that the final two parts of The Times’ series would result in irreparable injury to the national defense.
Reporter: Hell, why bother fighting the communists?
Reporter: I think Jefferson just rolled over in his grave.
Reporter: Have the courts ever stopped a paper from publishing before?
Reporter: Not in the history of the Republic.
Reporter: Good thing we’re not part of this mess.
Ben: I’d give my left one to be in this mess.
…
Bagdikian [looking at stacks and stacks of pages]: What the hell?
Daniel: Well, we were all former government guys. Top clearance, all that. McNamara wanted academics to have the chance to examine what had happened. He would say to us, “Let the chips fall where they may.”
Bagdikian: Brave man.
Daniel: Well, I think guilt was a bigger motivator than courage. McNamara didn’t lie as well as the rest. But I-I don’t think he saw what was coming, what we’d find, but it didn’t take him long to figure out–well, for us all to figure out. If the public ever saw these papers, they would turn against the war. Covert ops, guaranteed debt, rigged elections, it’s all in there. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson… They violated the Geneva Convention, and they lied to Congress and they lied to the public. They knew we couldn’t win and still sent boys to die.
Bagdikian: What about Nixon?
Daniel: He’s just carrying on like all the others. Too afraid to be the one who loses the war on his watch. Someone said this at some point about why we stayed when we knew we were losing. Ten percent was to help the South Vietnamese. Twenty percent was to hold back the commies. Seventy percent was to avoid the humiliation of an American defeat. Seventy percent of those boys just to avoid being humiliated? That stuck with me.
…
Bagdikian: They’re gonna lock you up, Dan.
Daniel: Wouldn’t you go to prison to stop this war?
Bagdikian: Theoretically, sure.
Daniel [warily]: You are gonna publish these documents?
Bagdikian: Yeah.
Daniel: Even with the injunction.
Bagdikian: Yes.
Daniel: Well, it’s not so theoretical then, is it?
…
Ben: So, can I ask you a hypothetical question?
Kay: Oh, dear, I don’t like hypothetical questions.
Ben: Well, I don’t think you’re gonna like the real one, either.
…
Ben: You know, the only couple I knew that both Kennedy and LBJ wanted to socialize with was you and your husband. And you own the damn paper. It’s just the way things worked. Politicians and the press, they trusted each other so they could go to the same dinner party and drink cocktails and tell jokes while there was a war raging in Vietnam.
Kay: Ben, I don’t know what we’re talking about. I’m not protecting Lyndon.
Ben: No, you got his former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the man who commissioned this study----he’s one of about…
Kay: I’m not protecting him.
Ben: …a dozen party guests out on your patio.
Kay: I’m not protecting any of them. I’m protecting the paper.
…
Ben: I never… I never thought of Jack as a source. I thought of him as a friend. And…And that was my mistake. And it was something that Jack knew all along. We can’t be both, we have to choose. And uh…And that’s the point. The days of us smoking cigars together down on Pennsylvania Avenue were over. Your friend McNamara’s study proves that. The way they lied. The way they lied. Those days have to be over. We have to be the check on their power. If we don’t hold them accountable, then, my God, who will?
Kay: Well, I’ve never smoked a cigar. And I have no problem holding Lyndon or Jack or Bob or any of them accountable. We can’t hold them accountable if we don’t have a newspaper.
Ben: When I get my hands on that study, what are you going to do, Mrs. Graham?[/b]
Cue, among other things [still today], the White House Correspondence Dinner?
[b]Kay [at home]: How you could just lie to us all.
McNamara: Well…i-it’s easy for the papers to characterize us as liars, we were just trying to push back…
Kay: Yeah, but you let it go on, and on, and----My son is home now and safe thank God. But you watched him go. You knew we couldn’t win over there for years and years and years, and yet you let me…You let so many of our friends send our boys off…
McNamara: Kay, we were doing the best we could. It was domino theory, containment. And eventually, we felt that military pressure was the only thing that was gonna drive Ho Chi Minh to the table. Our decision-making process was…
Kay: “Flawed.” It was flawed. That’s what your study said.
McNamara: Yes.
…
Lawyer: They will argue it’s a violation of the Espionage Act. That is a felony, Ben.
Ben: That’s only-only if the documents we print could damage the United States.
Lawyer: There’s a federal judge in New York who seems to think that they could.
Ben: Well, I’ve got six seasoned journalists in the next room who’ve been reporting on this war for the last ten years. And I’ll lay odds that they have a better idea of what could damage the United States than some judge who is just now wading in this territory for the first time.
…
McNamara: Look, Kay, I know why The Times ran the story. But you need to understand, the study was for posterity. It was written for academics in the future and right now, we’re still in the middle of the war. The papers can’t be objective. I suppose the public has a right to know. But I would prefer that the study not be made widely available until it can be read with some perspective. You understand.
Kay: Mm.
…
McNamara: You know, I worked in Washington for ten years I’ve seen these people up close. Bobby and Lyndon, they were tough customers. But Nixon is different. He’s got some real bad people around him. And if you publish, he’ll get the very worst of them the Colsons, and the Ehrlichmans and he’ll crush you.
Kay: I know, he’s just awful, but I…
McNamara: He’s a–Nixon’s a son of a bitch! He hates you, he hates Ben. He’s wanted to ruin the paper for years. And you will not get a second chance, Kay. The Richard Nixon I know will muster the full power of the presidency. And if there’s a way to destroy your paper, by God, he’ll find it!
…
Fritz: You’re talking about exposing years of government secrets. I can’t imagine they’re gonna take that lightly. You could jeopardize the public offering. You could jeopardize our television stations. You know a felon can’t hold a broadcast license.
Ben: You think I give two shits about the television stations?
Frtiz: You should, they make a hell of a lot more money than you do. And without that revenue, we’d be forced to sell. If the government wins and we’re convicted, the Washington Post as we know it will cease to exist.
Ben: Well, if we live in…in a world where the government could tell us what we can and cannot print, then the Washington Post as we know it has already ceased to exist.
…
Art [on phone]: Hello, it’s Art. Uh, Ben, there are concerns here that are frankly above your pay grade.
Ben: Well, there’s a few above yours. Like fucking freedom of the press.
Art: Let’s just be civil if we can.
Ben: Do you think Nixon is going to be civil? He is trying to censor the goddamn New York Times.
Art: Yes, The Times, not The Post.
Ben: It’s the same damn thing! This is an historic fight. If they lose, we lose… Due respect, we all have everything to lose if we don’t publish. What will happen to the reputation of this paper? Everyone will find out we had the study. Hell, I bet half the town knows already. What will it look like if we sit on our asses?
Art: It’ll look like we were prudent.
Ben: It will look like we were afraid. We will lose. The country will lose. Nixon wins. Nixon wins this one, and the next one. And all the ones after that because we were scared. Because the only way to assert the right to publish is to publish.
…
Kay [on phine]: Fritz, i-is Fritz-Fritz there? Fritz are you on?
Fritz: I’m here, Kay.
Kay: W-What do you think? W-What do you think I should do?
Fritz: I think… there are arguments on both sides. But I guess I wouldn’t publish.
Kay [after groping to think it through]: Let’s-Let’s go. Let’s-Let’s do it. Let’s-Let’s-- Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go. Let’s-- Let’s publish.
…
Fritz: You, you got half an hour. I’m uh, I’m not sure how much thought you put into this decision, but we still have time. The print deadline’s not till midnight.
Kay: I know when the print deadline is.
Fritz: Look, I’m still, uh, learning how to do this, but everything I know about business tells me you’re making a serious mistake here. One that will cost you and your paper dearly. And hurt every person gathered here, not to mention the hundreds of others who work for you.
Kay: I’m just trying to put my thoughts together.
Fritz: Kay, all I want is-is what is best for you and your business. But I just got off the phone with a couple of bankers, and they think it’s possible, likely even, that a number of their institutional investors will pull out if you go ahead and publish, and if they pull out… Kay. You got a couple of hours. For your sake and for the sake of everyone of your employees, I hope you will reconsider.
…
Roger [the lawyer]: If you got the study from the same source, that would amount to collusion.
Bagdikian: Yeah, we could all be executed at dawn.
Roger: And we could be held in contempt of court. Which means Mr. Bradlee and Mrs. Graham could go to jail. Mr. Bagdikian, how likely is it that your source and The Times’ source are the same person?
Bagdikian: It’s likely.
Roger: How likely?
Bagdikian: Very. It’s very likely.
…
Kay: You know, I just wanted to hold on to the company for you and Don and Willie and Stephen.
Daughter: You did. You have.
Kay: Well. You know that quote-- The quote, “A woman preaching is like a dog walking on its hind legs, it’s not done well and you’re surprised to see it’s done at all.” Samuel Johnson.
Daughter: Oh, Mummy. That’s a bunch of nonsense.
Kay: No, but that’s the way we all thought then. You know. I was never supposed to be in this job. When my father chose your dad to run the company, I thought it was the most natural thing in the world. I was so proud because, you know, Phil was so brilliant and he was so gifted and but I thought that was the way it was supposed to be. Everybody thought that way then.
…
Arthur: I disagreed with you earlier, but I thought it brave, but this? If we were to publish knowing this, it would just be irresponsible.
Fritz: Fritz, do you agree?
Fritz: Well, I don’t particularly like the idea of Kay as a convicted felon. And then there’s the issue of the prospectus. Based on the conversations I’ve had with my friends at Kravath, I believe a criminal indictment would qualify as a catastrophic event. And given the likelihood of indictment now… Kay, it could–
Kay: Yes, I…I understand. We uh, we have a responsibility to the company, to the- all the employees and to the long term health of the paper.
Fritz: Absolutely, Kay.
Kay: Yes. However, um… The prospectus also talks about the mission of the paper which is outstanding news collection and reporting, isn’t that right? And it also says that the newspaper will be dedicated to the welfare of the nation and to the, uh…principles of a free press. So, one could argue that the bankers were put on notice.
…
Rehnquist [on phone]: Good morning, this is William Rehnquist from the office of legal counsel at Justice. Yes, sir. Mr. Bradlee, I have been advised by the Secretary of Defense that the material published in The Washington Post this morning contains the information relating to the national defense of the United States and bears a top secret classification. As such the publication of this information is directly prohibited by the Espionage Act, Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 793. As publication will cause irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States, I respectfully request that you publish no further information of this character. And advise me that you have made arrangements for the return of these documents to the Department of Defense.
Ben: Well, thank you for the call, Mr. Rehnquist. But I’m sure you understand, I must respectfully decline.
…
Kay: What’s next?
Fritz: We’re going to court. Today. If we get a ruling in our favor or The Times does, we’ll be at the Supreme Court sometime next week.[/b]
And let’s just say that the ideological makeup of the court back then was rather different.
[b]Supreme Court Justice: Would The Post have published military plans for D-Day if they’d had them in advance?
Roger: Well, I don’t think there’s any comparison between a pending invasion of Europe and a historical survey of American involvement in the Vietnam war.
…
Cronkite [on TV]: I asked him what he considers the most important revelations to date from the Pentagon documents.
Daniel: I think the lesson is the people of this country can’t afford to let the President run the country by himself-- even foreign affairs any more than domestic affairs without the help of Congress. I was struck in fact by President Johnson’s reaction to these revelations as close to treason. Because it reflected to me the sense that what was damaging to the reputation of a particular administration—a particular individual was, in itself, treason which is very close to saying, “I am The State.”
…
Meg [to the Post staff]: Listen up, everybody, listen up. Uh, Justice Black’s opinion. “The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.”
…
Kay: Oh, thank God, the court ruling was very clear.
Ben: Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m sure Nixon will fall right in line.
Kay: Good. Because you know I don’t think I could ever live through something like this again.
…
Nixon [on the phone or from the tapes]: I want it clearly understood that from now on, never no reporter from The Washington Post is ever to be in The White House. Is that clear?
Aide: Absolutely.
Nixon: Never, never in The White House. No church service. Nothing with Mrs. Nixon does, you tell Connie. Don’t tell Mrs. Nixon 'cause she’ll approve it. No reporter from The Washington Post is ever to be in The White House again. And no photographer either. No photographer, is that clear? None ever to be in. That is a total order. And if necessary, I’ll fire you. You understand?
Aide: I do understand.
Nixon: Okay. All right. Good.[/b]
Cue Frank Wills.
D.C. Police, 2nd Precinct.
Wills: Yes, hello, this is Frank Wills. I think we might have a burglary in progress at the Watergate.