Reaction to "Most Dangerous Man in America"

For this weeks class, we were assigned to watch "The Most Dangerous Man in America," a movie exploring the release of the Pentagon Papers and the man who released them.  I actually really liked this movie.  It was interesting to see the public's reaction versus the reaction of the government, and what led to Daniel Ellsberg deciding to leak the papers... I would highly recommend this movie if you have about an hour and a half on your hands!! Here's my thoughts on a few questions we were asked to respond to:

      In your view, what is the legacy of the government actions documented in the Pentagon Papers?  How have such actions influenced democracy and trust of government in the United States?

o       I think that the legacy in the Pentagon Papers was a legacy of secrecy.  Granted, the government may have had perfectly valid reasons for keeping these documents secret. With the leak of the papers, however, the public learned that there were things that were being kept from them, decisions that the government, head of a democratic republic – which focuses on people having a hand in the government – were making behind closed doors.  This led to a general mistrust of government.  I think it has, for the most part, simmered down now and people typically find themselves able to trust the government, but there is always that stigma with politics that politicians are deceptive and sometimes lie to the public to achieve the image they desire.

      While being interviewed by television journalist Walter Cronkite, Ellsberg says the lesson he took away from his experience with the Pentagon Papers was that “the people of this country can’t afford to let the president run the country by himself without the help of Congress, without the help of the public.”  How would you define the lesson or lessons of the Pentagon Papers and the events surrounding their release to the public?

o       I would agree with Ellsberg in that the lesson to be learned from the Pentagon Papers is that the government often needs the public’s help to run the country.  The government would tell the public that the war was going well, better than expected, even.  Yet, in private meetings, they would say that there was no way they could see the U.S. winning the war.  This indicates to me that they should not have been keeping this secret from the public, as this is a situation that severely demanded the help and support of the public.  Another lesson I learned from this occurrence, mainly from the public’s reaction to the release of the Papers, was that the public respects truth, even when it isn’t good news.  I was impressed with the part of the movie that showed the public protecting Ellsberg from getting arrested at the time that he made the announcement that he leaked the papers.  The public was so glad to have this news that they were willing to protect the deliverer.

      What role or roles did media play in Ellsberg’s success and/ or lack of success in stopping the bombing and, ultimately, the war in Vietnam?  How do media actions then compare to media war coverage now?  How did the Pentagon Papers change the role of the media in the United States?

o       I think that the media coverage helped significantly in stopping the bombing and the war.  In all of the histories of our country’s wars, we find that one of the main tools used is propaganda – both to raise support and to lessen it.  The media placed a huge spotlight on Ellsberg, which quickly spread his views, rallied support in them, and raised the action necessary to give his views action.  I find the media coverage on war now to be very similar.  The way the media portrays things like the war in Iraq today has a great influence on public opinion, whether for the better, or for the worse.  The Pentagon Papers developed the role that the media has to keep a closer eye on the media, to ensure that they aren’t keeping secrets from the public or doing things that the public would protest (although sometimes, this isn’t as successful as one might like).

      Max Frankel (New York Times Washington bureau chief during the Pentagon Papers era) reflects on his newspaper’s Supreme Court victory, saying, “The cry of national security does not justify censorship in advance.”  In your view, under what circumstances do journalists have the right or responsibility to reveal classified information and under what circumstances do journalists have the right or responsibility to reveal classified information and under what circumstances should they refrain from doing so?  Under what circumstances, if any, should they be prohibited from doing so by the government or by law?

o       When the issue has a large impact on the way the public would/ should lead their lives, journalists have a right to reveal this information.  They should refrain from revealing classified information if they are only doing it to gain popularity, readership, or other personal or company benefits.  The government should be able to prohibit the press from publishing if the situation puts another in harm – for example, if the release of classified information would endanger members of the government or keep them from doing their job, there is greater harm than benefit in the release of these papers.  

      In your view, what would the effect on a free press have been if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the Nixon administration and prohibited newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, or if after publication The New York Times had been prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

o       It would not have lasted.  We saw how passionate the press was about protecting Ellsberg because of his leakage of the Pentagon Papers.  Clearly, the press was pleased with Ellsberg’s actions and upset with the government.  If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Nixon and against the Pentagon Papers, there would have been enough of a public uproar to demand a change.  If The New York Times had been prosecuted, there would have likewise been enough of an outrage in the public to either repeal the ruling punishing the Times or at least keep any other paper from getting punished as well.  

      In your view, would today’s major news media outlets be likely to make public the type of classified documents that The New York Times and other newspapers were handed in 1971?  Why or why not?

o       We have a perfect example demonstrating this with the new WikiLeaks.  If classified documents are released, the newspapers will jump on this – it will both increase their readers and get the information out to the public.  I do believe, however, that the papers would filter the leaks they receive.  Using the WikiLeaks example, there were hundreds of leaks posted.  But, the Times, and other papers publishing them, I would assume, have filtered through them and are only publishing the ones with great significance to the public or current events.