Dear Progressive Reader,
Fifty years ago, on June 13, 1971, The New York Times published a front page story that released portions of the now-famous Pentagon Papers, a massive research study on the U.S. role in Vietnam conducted by members of the Rand Corporation, and leaked by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. The documents revealed the lies being told to the people of the United States (and the world) by our government. I still have my yellowed copy of the paperback edition.
In August 1971, the lead editorial in The Progressive read, “We ponder the record of arrogance, duplicity, and deceit that emerges from the Pentagon Papers and wonder how we can best put our new knowledge to use so that our nation and the world will gain something . . . the disclosure, however tardy, makes it plain that the role of the press in our society and its relationship to our power elites is far more complex than is usually suggested.” And, the editorial continued, “It is a fact that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press remains our strongest safeguard against authoritarian repression and our most effective device for promoting democratic change.”
In the same issue, then-Washington editor for the magazine Erwin Knoll wrote, “We don't know all of it yet, and perhaps we never will, but we know enough. In a way we are lucky, for we have come to know before the final judgment day. And though our lords did their best to try to slam down the lid, their efforts were repulsed by the U.S. Supreme Court.” And, he concluded, “Now that we know what we know, what are we going to do?”
That Supreme Court decision, however, was not as strong as it might have been. It was a close vote, and left the door open for other instances of prior restraint or repercussions for publishing certain information. “We have allowed ominous inroads to be made on the historic freedom of the newspapers,” wrote Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas two years later. “The effort to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers failed only by a narrow margin and actually succeeded for a brief spell in imposing prior restraint on our press for the first time in our history.” This became obvious six years later when The Progressive was enjoined from publishing an article on nuclear secrecy in March 1979. That costly court battle was quietly resolved six months later when the government withdrew its case rather than lose at the bench.
Writing in the September 1971 issue of The Progressive, U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas, said, "The controversy generated by the Pentagon Papers is only the latest manifestation of the dissembling and subterfuge which have undermined popular confidence in our leaders and —-far worse—in our institutions." Fulbright continued, “Secrecy and subterfuge are themselves more dangerous to democracy than the practices they conceal. Totalitarian devices such as military surveillance of civilians cannot long survive in the full light of publicity.”
The decade of the 1970s was bookended by these two major free speech cases—the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and The Progressive’s struggle in 1979. The Pentagon Papers were declassified in full in 2011. The Progressive published its article in November 1979. But today the prosecution and persecution of whistleblowers is perhaps greater than ever, and the media landscape that attempts to silence certain forms of speech and information extends beyond the three TV networks and major newspapers of the 1970s, to the world of Facebook and other social media. The latest revelations of the Trump Administration’s use of the Justice Department to investigate members of Congress and the press through subpoenas to Apple and Google makes this more clear than ever.
Meanwhile, we continue our century-long mission to bring to light both struggles and solutions. This week on our website, Nicolas J.S. Davies writes about ways the world could and should address the COVID-19 pandemic through collective action; Jaisal Noor of The Real News Network, chronicles the success of worker cooperatives in putting people before profits during the past year; and Frye Gaillard reviews a new book by Lawrence Wright on how COVID has changed the world.
In addition, James Goodman examines the stories of people waiting for justice in immigration courts; Mike Ervin explains how the ADA has not opened many closed doors; Eleanor Bader looks at the meaning of dropping the Hyde Amendment from Biden’s budget; and Edward Hunt reports on U.S. funds going to an Al Qaeda offshoot in Syria. Plus, I sat down (by telephone) with former Congressmember and past Mayor of Cleveland Dennis Kucinich to talk about his new book and the meaning of political power.
Keep reading, and we will keep bringing you important articles on these and other issues of our time.
Sincerely,
Norman Stockwell
Publisher
P.S. –If you don’t already subscribe to The Progressive in print or digital form, please consider doing so today. Also, if you have a friend or relative that you feel should hear from the many voices for progressive change within our pages, please consider giving a gift subscription.
P.P.S. –We need you now more than ever. Please take a moment to support hard-hitting, independent reporting on issues that matter to you. Your donation today will keep us on solid ground and will help us continue to grow in the coming years. You can use the wallet envelope in the current issue of the magazine, or click on the “Donate” button below to join your fellow progressives in sustaining The Progressive as a voice for peace, social justice, and the common good.
|
|
