Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts

Sunday, June 3, 2018

The press to served the governed

I really wanted to see the movie The Post when it was in theaters, especially when it got to the second-run houses. But, for a variety of reasons, I missed it.

A week ago I was in my local library. It had been so long since I had used it I had to get my library card renewed. While there I saw the poster for the upcoming free Friday films. And the one for last Friday was The Post. So I went. The film was shown on a standard home-style video system. The room was a simple community meeting room. The chairs were what one would expect in such a room, meaning not all that comfortable.

But it was indeed free and it was a chance to see the movie. I think about 30 people attended, most looked to be my age or older.

This is a story based on real life events. I apologize if my telling of these details are not historically accurate. The movie wasn’t always clear, but they seem an important part of explaining the movie.

Back in the late 1960s Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst at the RAND Corporation, contributed to a report of what the federal government said about the events before and during the war in Vietnam contrasted with what the analysts told the government and what it actually did. This report included presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Since the government was clearly lying to the public (like saying perhaps around 1967 that the war was unwinnable, yet continuing to send troops to die because America doesn’t lose wars) Ellsberg became annoyed that this extensive classified report was being hidden. So in 1971 he “borrowed” the may volumes of the report, photocopied them, and gave them to the New York Times. Nixon, of course, filed a lawsuit against the Times saying releasing the report threatened national security. So the Washington Post sought out Ellsberg to publish more of the papers.

The movie centers on the staff at the Post. It was a family owned paper that Katherine Graham’s father had willed to her husband Phil. But a few years after that Phil died, leaving Katherine (played by Meryl Streep) in charge. At the time she was the only female head of a major paper and she wasn’t sure she was up to the task (at least as portrayed in this movie). Ben Bradlee (played by Tom Hanks), the head of the news department, was as bullish as Katherine was timid.

The question becomes do they publish these papers? Nixon’s lawyers threaten a lawsuit and through cascading actions Katherine could be forced to close the paper. Lots of people would lose jobs.

It probably isn’t too much of a spoiler to say the Post did publish what became known as the Pentagon Papers. The government added the Post to their suit against the Times and the Supremes expedited the case. From the majority opinion:
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
Nixon was so annoyed with the outcome of the case that he told his staff to try to discredit Ellsberg, which is what started the Watergate Scandal and ended his presidency.

From the International Movie Database trivia page for this movie, director…

Steven Spielberg wanted to have his film released as quickly as possible given the parallels between its theme and the burgeoning political 'fake news' climate in the U.S. According to Meryl Streep, filming started in May (2017) and finished at the end of July (2017) and Spielberg had it cut two weeks later, an unprecedented feat. The gestation from script to final cut lasted a modest 9 months.
I’m sure Spielberg also wanted us to see the nature of the reporting in 1971 compared to now. Melissa McEwan of Shakesville has an opinion on what the press is doing these day. Too many news organizations are enabling and protecting his consolidation of power. A few organizations may be good at documenting what the nasty guy and the GOP are doing. But that is far from explaining why he is doing it and what the consequences are for the country. And they’re not doing that.

The passion to served the governed that Ben Bradlee and Daniel Ellsberg demonstrated are missing from modern news reporting.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Vietnam!

Vietnam has repealed its ban on same-sex marriage. The decision might be a strategic move to improve the country's image and encourage gay tourism. It is also part of an effort to get the country to accept gays and lesbians in general and to show such marriages are not harmful to society. However, removing the ban does not mean the country has legalized it – same-sex couples do not have the same legal rights and responsibilities as straight couples. It's a step in the right direction.



Ari Ezra Waldman notes something significant about marriage equality coming to Florida. The 11th Circuit has not yet ruled on marriage equality. The Supremes refused to grant a stay, marking the first time the Supremes helped to bring about marriage equality without a ruling from a Circuit Court. Waldman sees that as a sign the Supremes won't stop marriage equality – though many others have noted an option the Supremes have is to declare that a state may do what it wants.



Cecil Bell of the Texas state legislature has introduced a bill that would continue to ban same-sex marriage in Texas and also (as the Texas Observer wrote) "grant Texas sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment o the U.S. Constitution when it comes to enforcing the law, 'regardless of a contrary federal court ruling.'" Translation: when it comes to marriage we're our own country and whatever the Supremes say about gay marriage will mean nothing here.

I took a look at the 11th Amendment. It says a citizen of one state can't sue the gov't of another. It doesn't say anything about protecting a state from the US Constitution. So good luck with that.

The reason for Bell's bill is the Texas ban was before the 5th Circuit today. Judge Higgenbotham is considered the swing vote on that 3 judge panel and he seems skeptical and amused by the arguments Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are using to justify their bans.



There is no news about whether the Supremes accepted the same-sex marriage case out of Michigan. That case was on the agenda for today's session to decide which cases to accept. News might come Monday or might come the next time the Supremes have such a meeting.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Well, one step forward

Vietnam has relented and legalized same-sex weddings. Alas, the couples will not be recognized as married. Yup, you can have a wedding without being married.