The issue of the Pentagon Papers was a pretty interesting situation. This was a majorly significant moment for journalism. The fact that the New York Times published these secretive documents and that a former government official leaked them, was not good for the US government.
It would have been pretty crazy to see this headline back in 1971: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB348/secret_briefs.htm
Our little class debate that we had on this subject was really interesting. I found myself not knowing where I stood anymore on the subject. I could definitely see how both sides of the argument had very valid points as to whether the papers being leaked was right or wrong and why. Obviously it's good and important for us as American citizens to know what's going on in our country and what our leaders are doing, but is ignorance bliss? I think it could go either way, depending on how much I felt like what was going on in Vietnam affected me. Coming from where I am now in 2013, I feel like I would have been ok not knowing what the Pentagon Papers contained. However, I can't help but think that I would feel differently if I was living through the Vietnam war. I might want to know more since it was more applicable then.
I liked this because it kind of talked about how some people felt at the time about the release: http://whitehousetapes.net/exhibit/first-domino-nixon-and-pentagon-papers
I think this is interesting in relation to ethics as well. Are there exceptions to what should and shouldn't be printed? It's a total judgement call, and everyone's opinions differ as to what's right or wrong to publish or write about. That's why as journalists we need to be independent thinkers, but at the same time use our own moral compass and good judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment