The Most Dangerous Man in America

Study Guide for COMMS 239

1. 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?
It seems to me that the legacy of government actions as documented in the Pentagon Papers was for the government to make the decisions, to run the show without the involvement of the public. Once the Pentagon Papers were published and the public made aware of this legacy, this governmental attitude of having the right to control unimpeded by public opinion or influence, the people realized how easy it had been for the government to keep secrets. Journalists realized that a closer watch needed to be kept upon powerful institutions. A general distrust of government affairs was instilled in all who were part of this experience and this distrust has been passed down through the generations, creating a tradition of watchdog journalism which acts as a 4th branch of government, an extra check and balance, and enables our system of democracy to function idealistically with the public informed and in control.

2. 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?
I think the Pentagon Papers prove that the public should always be skeptical of the decisions their government leaders make, and that the public should demand the truth. I believe a significant lesson that arose from the events surrounding the release of the Pentagon Papers is of free speech. The public experienced the free flow of information in the act of releasing the Pentagon Papers and learned what it means for the press to be a watchdog on powerful institutions and leaders.

3. 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?
The media played a huge role in the end of the war in Vietnam and of the dismissal of the case against Ellsberg through the Watergate Scandal. Once that story broke, it only magnified the impact and importance of the Pentagon Papers and resulted in the impeachment of President Nixon and the termination of the war nine months later. In today’s climate we tend to believe that we have open and constant coverage on the war; however, the current Wikileaks leak of confidential war information mimics the leak of the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers caused the media to recognize their role as a watchdog.


4. 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 should they refrain from doing so? Under what circumstances, if any, should they be prohibited from doing so by the government or by law?
I believe journalists always have the responsibility to reveal information to the public. Whether they have a right to the information is another matter entirely. But journalists will always have the right and responsibility to inform the public of matters that are significant to them: things that affect their lives, things that may change public opinion, things that will prevent harm, things that are necessary for our country to function correctly allowing the people as a whole to govern instead of a few powerful ones. Journalists should refrain from revealing classified information when it harms more than it helps, when national security is put at risk, and when soldiers lives would be put in danger if information were to be leaked.
I think there are too many unforeseen situations that may arise in the future that impede the creation of a law that would prohibit the press from revealing information. I think the government would use such a law to their advantage and question every move of journalists.

5. 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 ?
The entire notion of a free press would have been murdered had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nixon administration and prohibited newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers. Government officials would have no checks or balances anymore. Thousands of people proved able to keep significant, plan-altering secrets from the public: if the press were prohibited from revealing information to the public regarding government lies, then we would be living in a totalitarian society, not a democratic one. The same results go for if The New York Times had been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. No newspaper would feel safe or validated to reveal governmental affairs, and thus the government would have complete control.

6. 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?
Absolutely. We hate spending money on lawsuits, but we love the big audiences investigative reporting draws. Plus, the media is currently leaking government documents thus proving my point (See State's Secrets in the NYT, acquired from Wikileaks).