3 ms·

> I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also

> I think people are being slightly hyperbolic. People are not being hyperbolic. This is reducing the transparency of Pentagon to the American people. See also the Whitehouse banning the AP earlier this year. > It's basically stating that if a news outlet publishes unauthorized information then they won't be allowed access to the Pentagon. Without access it's going to be very hard to do good reporting, adversarial or otherwise. This is the government working to control what is said. > You're generally going to be reluctant to frame entities that you have a positive relationship with in a negative way. And this agreement is essentially formalizing adversarialness. The world is built on relationships. One of the keys of being a good journalist/reporter is being able to have relationships which help to build stories while also staying objective.

Terr_ 1y ago
> See also the Whitehouse banning the AP Yeah, any "benefit of the doubt" burned away months ago. The administration is trying to control published opinions and value-judgements, as opposed to concealing sensitive military data.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 1y ago
The Pentagon Papers are one of the biggest leaks that the corporate media has ever published. Its effect on the military industrial complex and the government in general cannot really be overstated. It was published in 1971. [1] In 1972 the Pentagon created the 'Correspondents' Corridor' where journalists could 'embed' with the Pentagon effectively permanently. From your worldview, do you not find the timing odd? The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government, and then the government welcomes them in, with privileged access no less, to one of the most sensitive locations in the entirety of the country? And this all happened under Nixon, a man who wasn't exactly known for his benevolence. There was a time, not that long ago, when embedded war reporters were looked upon negatively. The reason is that it's impossible to remain impartial. This is not only because of the relationships you form in such a location, but also because if "imparial" ends up being negative, you're getting 'unembedded' quite quickly. So it ends up being defacto propaganda. Think about what "transparency" we've gained from the media being embedded with the Pentagon since 1972. It mostly doesn't exist. Even if somebody wants to leak something it's not like they're going to walk up to a journalist in the Pentagon to do it. On the contrary, the media seems to have become ever more ingrained into the military industrial complex ever since this date, to the point that in 2023 WaPo spent more time trying to track down a leaker and assess his possible motives, than covering what was leaked. Government and media should be kept separated, and this act is, probably unintentionally, helping to do exactly that. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] - https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-corridor-renamed/ https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-...
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  >> The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government The Pentagon Papers covered the period from 1945 to 1968. Nixon took office in 1969. If the leaks were embarrassing, they were particularly embarrassing to the JFK/LBJ administrations. Nixon initially didn't intent to do anything about the leak. Henry Kissinger convinced him that allowing the leaking of classified documents in the press would set a bad example: "President Nixon’s reaction that Sunday morning was that the damage fell mostly on the Johnson Administration and that he should leave it alone. That afternoon, however, security advisor Kissinger convinced Nixon that he had to act on “this wholesale theft and unauthorized disclosure.” “The massive hemorrhage of state secrets was bound to raise doubts about our reliability in the minds of other governments, friend or foe, and indeed about the stability of our political system,” Kissinger said in his memoirs. Once energized, Nixon soon became obsessed. Dissatisfied with the FBI’s progress in the case, he organized his own group of investigators in the White House. They styled themselves “the plumbers” because their job was to stop leaks." -- https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0207pentagon/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0207pentagon/ If Nixon had ignored Kissinger that day, he would probably close to the top of the typical lists of greatest US Presidents rather than close to the bottom.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    A man is accountable for his own actions. That's true for Nazi grunts and most certainly for a US President. Nixon had already been wiretapping journalists since his first months in office. [1] The guy was paranoid, anti-media, and then invited the media into permanent residence at the Pentagon. It's not hard to see the ulterior motive because the ulterior motive was the only motive. As for the impact of the papers directly on Nixon, he could have been honest and immediately come forth with the truth when entering office. He chose not to, which made him complicit in the lies of previous administrations. This is also why if you ask somebody who's war was Vietnam? Most of everybody is going to say Nixon. You can see strong parallels with Trump and Ukraine in modern times. It's obvious the government is not being at all honest about their assessment of the situation over there, yet Trump continues to 'play along' with the lies and indeed this is a big part of the reason why Ukraine will likely go down in history as 'Trump's War.' If the 'Ukraine Papers' were leaked, Trump would certainly first try to pin it on Biden, but in reality nobody cares about Biden anymore - and instead the papers would mostly just reveal his own lies and complicity. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_wiretaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_wiretaps

Terr_ 1y ago

> See also the Whitehouse banning the AP Yeah, any "benefit of the doubt" burned away months ago. The administration is trying to control published opinions and value-judgements, as opposed to concealing sensitive military data.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 1y ago

The Pentagon Papers are one of the biggest leaks that the corporate media has ever published. Its effect on the military industrial complex and the government in general cannot really be overstated. It was published in 1971. [1] In 1972 the Pentagon created the 'Correspondents' Corridor' where journalists could 'embed' with the Pentagon effectively permanently. From your worldview, do you not find the timing odd? The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government, and then the government welcomes them in, with privileged access no less, to one of the most sensitive locations in the entirety of the country? And this all happened under Nixon, a man who wasn't exactly known for his benevolence. There was a time, not that long ago, when embedded war reporters were looked upon negatively. The reason is that it's impossible to remain impartial. This is not only because of the relationships you form in such a location, but also because if "imparial" ends up being negative, you're getting 'unembedded' quite quickly. So it ends up being defacto propaganda. Think about what "transparency" we've gained from the media being embedded with the Pentagon since 1972. It mostly doesn't exist. Even if somebody wants to leak something it's not like they're going to walk up to a journalist in the Pentagon to do it. On the contrary, the media seems to have become ever more ingrained into the military industrial complex ever since this date, to the point that in 2023 WaPo spent more time trying to track down a leaker and assess his possible motives, than covering what was leaked. Government and media should be kept separated, and this act is, probably unintentionally, helping to do exactly that. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [2] - https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-corridor-renamed/ https://nation.time.com/2012/09/27/pentagons-correspondents-...

rufus_foreman 1y ago
>> The media releases one of the biggest ever leaks, completely embarrassing the government The Pentagon Papers covered the period from 1945 to 1968. Nixon took office in 1969. If the leaks were embarrassing, they were particularly embarrassing to the JFK/LBJ administrations. Nixon initially didn't intent to do anything about the leak. Henry Kissinger convinced him that allowing the leaking of classified documents in the press would set a bad example: "President Nixon’s reaction that Sunday morning was that the damage fell mostly on the Johnson Administration and that he should leave it alone. That afternoon, however, security advisor Kissinger convinced Nixon that he had to act on “this wholesale theft and unauthorized disclosure.” “The massive hemorrhage of state secrets was bound to raise doubts about our reliability in the minds of other governments, friend or foe, and indeed about the stability of our political system,” Kissinger said in his memoirs. Once energized, Nixon soon became obsessed. Dissatisfied with the FBI’s progress in the case, he organized his own group of investigators in the White House. They styled themselves “the plumbers” because their job was to stop leaks." -- https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0207pentagon/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0207pentagon/ If Nixon had ignored Kissinger that day, he would probably close to the top of the typical lists of greatest US Presidents rather than close to the bottom.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  A man is accountable for his own actions. That's true for Nazi grunts and most certainly for a US President. Nixon had already been wiretapping journalists since his first months in office. [1] The guy was paranoid, anti-media, and then invited the media into permanent residence at the Pentagon. It's not hard to see the ulterior motive because the ulterior motive was the only motive. As for the impact of the papers directly on Nixon, he could have been honest and immediately come forth with the truth when entering office. He chose not to, which made him complicit in the lies of previous administrations. This is also why if you ask somebody who's war was Vietnam? Most of everybody is going to say Nixon. You can see strong parallels with Trump and Ukraine in modern times. It's obvious the government is not being at all honest about their assessment of the situation over there, yet Trump continues to 'play along' with the lies and indeed this is a big part of the reason why Ukraine will likely go down in history as 'Trump's War.' If the 'Ukraine Papers' were leaked, Trump would certainly first try to pin it on Biden, but in reality nobody cares about Biden anymore - and instead the papers would mostly just reveal his own lies and complicity. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_wiretaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_wiretaps