Time Is Right for New Pentagon Papers
By Amy Goodman
Of the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Mike Gravel is probably the least well recognized. His dark-horse candidacy may be the butt of jokes on the late-night comedy shows, but that doesn't faze former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg: "Here is a senator who was not afraid to look foolish. That is the fear that keeps people in line all their lives."
LinkHere
Of the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Mike Gravel is probably the least well recognized. His dark-horse candidacy may be the butt of jokes on the late-night comedy shows, but that doesn't faze former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg: "Here is a senator who was not afraid to look foolish. That is the fear that keeps people in line all their lives."
LinkHere
Source of Pentagon Papers Critiques Iraq Coverage
Published: January 28, 2003NEW YORK Daniel Ellsberg has never been a journalist, but he is one of the most important figures in the history of American journalism. His release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 not only sparked a landmark freedom-of-the-press case, it changed journalism forever, ushering in an era of "leaks," whistle-blowers, and general skepticism about official statements.
His book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, was published to much acclaim last fall. Ellsberg is uniquely qualified to address the issue of the media and war: as a former Marine, a Rand Corp. analyst, and an adviser to Robert McNamara, Clark Clifford, and Henry Kissinger on Vietnam -- not to mention as one of the most famous newspaper sources in history. E&P Editor Greg Mitchell interviewed Ellsberg, who has long lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, last week.
What do you think of press coverage of the ramp-up to the Iraq war?
People used to ask me, at the time of the Pentagon Papers, how the press was covering Vietnam, and I would respond that I could put it two ways: they were doing badly, but better than any other institution in society -- or they were doing better than any other institution in society, but badly.
Back then, the press only looked good compared to the administration's account of itself, which was awful from beginning to end, and, compared to Congress, which only once held a real hearing on the war.
Dissenters within the administration behaved badly, too. They understood the war was heading for disaster, and, without exception, including me, did not break ranks. >>>cont
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home