Pentagon Papers vs. Wikilinks – Then and Now

Communication majors may remember studying a case involving the “Pentagon Papers” in a media history class. Basically, back in 1971, the New York Times got their hands on the aforementioned papers that detail classified information about the war effort in Vietnam. They wanted to publish the info, the President objected, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in The New York Times v. United States. The Court found 6-3 that the government failed to demonstrate burden of proof required for a prior restraint injunction. First Amendment win. The papers remain classified to this day.

Hmmm… Sounds familiar right? Does the American public have a right to know so-called “government secrets”? Does the American press have a right to access such information? The Pentagon Papers are an interesting pre-digital precedent to the recent WikiLeaks scandals. It was this historical background that made the story regarding the New York Times and Wikileaks so fascinating to me.

In their coverage of WikiLeaks, BBC, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Politico all explored how the the United States apparently ignored detainee abuse. The New York Times basically said “but these Iraqi guys were worse!” In forty years, the Times seemingly went from trail-blazer to truth-spinner.

Obviously, editors change over the years, so the philosophy behind a newspaper can change drastically as well. But something clearly changed regarding the culture of the paper, and their interpretation of the first amendment. When the issue involves such a clear reprehensible morality of the American government, citizens deserve to know the facts. While they can find these facts in the aforementioned papers, none of those papers carry the same homegrown credibility that the Times uniquely posesses.

To understand this discrepancy, maybe the American culture offers some insight. In 1971, citizens had no global digital network through which to share information. In attempting to publish the Pentagon Papers, the Times would have broken the story and offered citizens information they could find nowhere else. Sales would go through the roof.

In 2010, the document itself can be downloaded through a clicks. Everyone has the same access and the flow of information is more flat. All of this at a time when traditional newspapers are facing a slow demise. The Times are probably hold on to what over goodwill with government sources they have left. Instead of breaking the story, the Times attempted to not let the story break them.

As Greenwald explains: “serving the Government’s interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That’s their role. That’s what makes them the ‘establishment media’.” What new media like Wikilinks offer is a system of media not tied to any traditional form of reputation or connection. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But in our political culture, don’t media outlets need some type of consistent source? These torture memos are a big find, but how likely will Wikilinks get another source like that again, especially after this scandal? At least the Times still gets invited to the White House press conferences.

Tags: agenda setting, response, wikileaks