The Way the Pentagon Papers Changed Journalism

They say history repeats itself. But even if that’s true, do modern audiences care? Four retired journalism professors from the William Allen White School of Journalism at the University of Kansas talked about 1971, the year that the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and allowed news organizations across the US to publish the Pentagon Papers. 

Let’s back up a little and start from the beginning. The Pentagon Papers were the nickname for a classified government study started in 1967 about the US involvement in Vietnam. One of the men who worked on the study, Daniel Ellsberg, was frustrated that it was classified. According to Professor John Broholm, “He thought the public ought to know.” In March 1971, Ellsberg gave copies of the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. Three months later, the Times began publishing them. The Justice Department then filed an injunction to force the Times to stop publication. However, The Washington Post, which had since gotten copies of the papers, began publishing them, despite the risks. After that, newspapers all over the country picked up the story. Meanwhile, the government took The New York Times and The Washington Post to the Supreme Court to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to publish the classified material. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the First Amendment and allow the news organizations to print whatever material they wanted. 

For the American people, the Pentagon Papers were a turning point in how they viewed the Vietnam War. The papers fueled the public’s opposition and heightened the role of news organizations.

“The New York Times and other papers, … it was unmasking what was going on in the government,” Broholm recalls. “They’ve been lying to us as bad as we thought.” 

Professor Chuck Marsh remembers seeing the journalists as heroes.

“My main reaction to it all was relief that journalism stood as a check on a corrupt government,” Marsh said. 

However, the details behind the Supreme Court’s decision highlight the real controversy over the papers’ publication. 

“Keep in mind it was a 6-3 opinion.” Professor Thomas Volek said. “So three of the justices thought they should enjoin the New York Times and everybody else from printing these things.” Volek was a journalism law and ethics professor and taught about the Pentagon Papers during his class. 

“Three of the justices were found in favor of The New York Times but really only on technical grounds and, one or two of them basically said ‘if congress passes a law that specifically prohibits this we’d be happy with it.’ So now, you know, you’re looking at three justices were solidly behind the press.” Volek said. “So yeah, they won, but it wasn’t this ringing endorsement of the press.”

While at the time, these decisions seemed to change a lot about the way that media organizations could share news, they didn’t necessarily impact the press long term.

“I don’t recall in my subsequent 47 years of teaching and working in TV news management that a conversation about them ever came up,” said Professor Max Utsler. 

According to Broholm, one of the most important parts of mass media is the audience that the media reaches. In order to maintain a strong audience, demands, wants, and needs should be considered from the base of every platform. 

How does one organization balance the need to make money with limiting the kind of content they publish? According to Volek- they can’t, they must simply do what they can to maintain large audience bases. This is exactly what news organizations do. The way Volek explains it, the need to get as broad of an audience as possible keeps a check on the news organizations from getting too biased. If they have too much political influence one way or another, they lose some of their supporters. For large corporations, this isn’t as much of an issue. But for local papers, small journals, and other small organizations dedicated to news, this is the main concern, Volek said. 

“If you want to keep the doors open and keep the lights on, sooner or later you’re going to have to make some money. And making money means, more or less, giving people what they want.” Volek said. 

The media changes so often and so quickly that for Broholm, media organizations will never be the same again. 

“It changed into this, and it will change into something else,” Broholm said. 

That’s really the important thing to keep in mind. While the Pentagon Papers helped redefine freedom of speech in a modern context, these actions happened 50 years ago. At the time, with all the opposition to the Vietnam War, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the others were giving the American people what they wanted. However, since then technology and the sharing of information have changed the news industry. 

For example, this year the Pandora Papers were leaked. These are confidential, international documents, that, according to BBC, revealed “hidden wealth, tax avoidance, and in some cases, money laundering by some of the world’s most rich and powerful.” These papers didn’t get as much press as the Pentagon Papers once had despite the international impact. 

“The media audience has limited attention and tunnel vision as to what it pays attention to,” Broholm said.

According to Volek, freedom of speech also goes hand in hand with the power to form your own opinions. Being able to say whatever you want also means that you have the freedom to get the information you need to make informed decisions.

“Ultimately it’s up to the individual to be smart enough, informed enough to understand the media landscape, the political landscape, the economic landscape, okay, to understand that life is not about bumper sticker slogans, but rather you have to look at issues and someday be informed and then make up your own mind on that,” Volek said. “And I fear that there are many people who just don’t do that.”