Effects of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate Tapes on the Relationship Between American Government and Media

     By the end of the Cold War, Vietnam had split into two states. Communist North Vietnam, led by Ho Chi Minh, and South Vietnam, led by self-proclaimed dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. U.S. Government officials feared not getting involved in Vietnam because of what they called the “Domino Effect,” which refers to the idea that if Vietnam became a communist state, the rest of South East Asia would follow suit, and eventually so would the rest of the world. As China became increasingly supportive of North Vietnam, the U.S. saw it necessary to support South Vietnam, at first only by sending supplies and officers to train the Vietnamese military. Eventually, the U.S. involvement escalated to the point where upwards of 50,000 American troops had been deployed. Anti-war activists strongly disagreed with the U.S. Government’s decision towards war. They felt the U.S. did not need to get involved in another situation like Korea. They did not want to sacrifice the money, supplies, and lives for a nation that did not even want foreign assistance. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all supported the war in Vietnam, each increasing involvement with his respective presidency. To what extent the presidents were involving the U.S. with Vietnam however, was not fully disclosed to the American public.

Anti-Vietnam War Poster

     

     At the time these men served in office, reporters believed that their relationship with the government was one intended by the first amendment of the Constitution. If a reporter went digging a little too far, it was understood that some matters had to be kept secret for reasons of national security. “Reasons of national security,” soon became an excuse for government officials. It is ironic really. America was involving itself in a war against power-hungry communist regimes, while at home her leaders took advantage of their power and status by lying to the American people under the façade of overly classified documents and lame justifications.

Richard Nixon talking on the phone in the oval office. Ironic because the deceitful Nixon is juxtaposed with the bust of "Honest Abe."

     

     As the war in Vietnam worsened, so did the depth of deceit by American presidents, culminating with two major events surrounding President Richard Nixon; the publishing of the Pentagon Papers and the leak of the Watergate Tapes. The Pentagon Papers were commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara under the name “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force.” The purpose of the report was to record America’s involvement in Vietnam, from beginning (~1954) to present (1969). Ultimately, the report served to disclose the outright lies of all the presidents involved in the war, from Eisenhower to Nixon. The Pentagon Papers were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, an analyst on the task force who became so disturbed by the deceit that he secretly photocopied 7,000 pages of the report. After failing to release the papers to the public via a congressman, Ellsberg turned to the New York Times, who published the first “part in a series” of the report.

Time Magazine Cover (not to be confused with the New York Times)

    

   Immediately, Nixon claimed that he was in favor of moving out of Vietnam, but that it was difficult to undo the damage caused by his predecessors Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. With most Americans in disbelief, he then took action not against the newspaper, but against Ellsberg in, eventually, the Supreme Court for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. However, Nixon did not only take action within the law. He illegally broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, searching for accessory incriminating evidence, still trying to avoid blame. This unlawful act reversed Ellsberg’s potential 150 year sentence and swung the case in his favor, 6 to 3.

Daniel Ellsberg in court

     Nixon did not stop his power trip there. Desperate to be reelected in 1972, Republican Nixon hired burglars to break into the Democratic National Committee and wire tap the phones and steal the classified documents of select individuals. Unfortunately for Nixon, a sharp-eyed security guardsmen found tape on door locks left by the burglars and called the police. The burglars were arrested, but Nixon’s cover up was sufficient to win him the election. He was not discovered as the leader of the burglary until 1973, when as a result he resigned.

Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force Cover Sheet

     The Pentagon Papers and Watergate Scandal give us two important take-aways: 1) By the first amendment, the American people have a right to freedom of press, and thus to information that is not to be unjustly withheld because of superficial reasons, and 2) It is the duty of reporters and journalists to mediate between the American government and her people, providing truthful information without compromising security. If America is a nation “by the people and for the people,” then those people must know their nation’s agenda and be provided with enough information to meaningfully add to the nation’s debates. This has always been true, but it was only realized after the Pentagon Papers and Watergate Scandal. 

Annotated Source List:

1) The Miller Center at the University of Virginia detailed Daniel Ellsberg's involvement in the release of the Pentagon Papers and the subsequent events that related to Nixon, describing the logic behind Nixon's political moves with Watergate evidence as proof.

2) The "40 Years After the Leak, Weighing the Impact of the Pentagon Papers" video, produced by PBS News Hour, provided insight into the changes in attitude of the media toward American government.

3) A large portion of information about Daniel Ellsberg's court case was found in the article "The Impact of the Pentagon Papers," published by The Telegraph.

4) Freedom for Vietnam provided an anti-war perspective on the actions of individual presidents and on general reasons why America should not have been involved.

5) The American government's perspective and reasoning for getting involved in Vietnam are included in an article by Dhahran British Grammar School. Since it came from a British source, I hoped it would be less biased.

6) The History Channel's article on the Watergate Scandal provided a summary of the burglaries and cover-ups.

7) I began my search on the Pentagon Papers with the basic facts provided online by the National Archives.

Thoughts on the Portrayal of the Great Depression in the Movie Cinderella Man:

   

     Each individual is said to be the sum of his or her experiences and surroundings. Just as people are conglomerates of events that take place in their lives, the other people with whom they surround themselves, and their specific time and location in space, the memories of these people are too. As time moves forward, history becomes, essentially, a conglomeration of the memories of many, rather than specific memories of single individuals. Even events reported and recorded in history books cannot are not completely factual; the primary sources come from individual, perhaps even biased, perspectives. What becomes most important is the essence, the main idea, of what happened. 

     Films are an excellent way to communicate history. For lack of time (moviegoers do not always have the greatest attention span), filmmakers must have discretion in what to include, from modifying and/or fabricating dialogues to dramatizing tragedies and glories. 

     The movie Cinderella Man is based on true events. It is a successful film because it tells the story of one man in a way that mirrors the experiences of the masses during the Great Depression. One of the most important components of the film was the evocation of emotion from the viewers. This is more simple to do if the film focuses on one perspective. So, the filmmaker chose to villain-ize Max Baer, making the underdog win of James Braddock more triumphant. The filmmaker also chose not to dwell on Baer's personal life and jewish heritage. Another artistic liberty taken was with the age of Braddock's children. They were made younger, causing the audience to feel more pity for the family in their hard times. 

     In the film, Braddock becomes a hero to many as a man who remade himself through strength and hard work, despite the ubiquitous Depression. His story was uplifting to others because they identified with him. The majority of people in America still believed in the "self-made man." They valued hard work and perseverance, trusting that, with enough of each, any man could rise to, maybe not fame and fortune but, a comfortable lifestyle. This mindset was a form of Social Darwinism: the weak and lazy will not succeed. When the Depression hit, many men could no longer provide for their families and they took it as personal failure. Braddock for example first tried working with a broken hand, but then had to, in his mind, stoop to receiving government assistance, standing in bread lines and taking loans. Still unable to put away his old mindset in light of the times, Braddock returned all he had taken from the government when his personal financial situation improved. 

     The film not only captures one lower middle class man's stubborn pride and financial struggle, but also shows how the Depression affected multiple rungs on the social ladder, including women and upper class men. For example, the characterization of Braddock's wife reveals the fear of many women of the time; the fear of their husbands leaving out of selfish survival and the fear of having to send their children away to more able family members -- yet another instance of the typical 1930s Social Darwinistic mindset. Men who had previously been substantially wealthy, like Braddock's manager, felt they had to hide their depressed situation. The manager stayed in his luxurious apartment, but tried not to invite anyone over out of embarrassment. He had had to sell all his furniture and miscellaneous items of value. 

     While not necessarily completely factual, the film still paints a picture of what life must have been in the 1930s. The audience is exposed to the bread lines, the scrappy meals, the sacrifices of each family member for the good of the family unit, multiple levels of society from people living in Hoovervilles to the owners of the boxing company, the self-judgment and the shame of embarrassment, and, most significantly, the emotional strength of the people of the Depression.