Skip to main content

The Pentagon Papers: Filling in a Missing Piece


Neil Sheehan (October 27, 1936 – January 7, 2021) has died.  A giant of old-school American print journalism, Sheehan began his career in the Tokyo bureau of the UPI in 1962. He was in Japan with the US Army, and the reporting was a moonlighting gig. 

When he was released from the service, the UPI took him on his payroll, and sent him to Saigon.

In 1964, he returned to the US to take a job in New York, on the city desk of the Times. But that must have seemed boring to him. By 1966 (I'm skipping some career points), he was in Washington for the NYT, covering the Pentagon. It was that assignment that got him into the history books in a big way. 

See below: 

After Neil Sheehan’s death, secret interview reveals how he got Pentagon Papers (msn.com)


Here is where the new revelation, a post-mortem disclosure of an old Sheehan interview, sheds some new light. Sheehan says in the interview that Ellsberg was very wary of letting Sheehan make any copies of the famous report on the war. Sheehan was supposed to just sit in a room with copies and take notes, then write a story based on those notes. He knew this wasn't going to fly.

So ... Sheehan snuck the documents out and made copies behind Ellsberg's back.  Ellsberg never mentioned this fact in connection with his own trial in 1973 under the Espionage Act. One can attribute this to a sense of solidarity with Sheehan despite his sneakiness, or one can attribute it to t he fact that it likely wouldn't have helped Ellsberg's defense. In general, whenever you can be convicted of a crime for letting a reporter make copies of certain documents, you can also be convicted for letting him into the room to read them and take notes in the mutual expectation that here will be a news story about them. The distinction makes no difference. 

And, of course, Ellsberg didn't need to rat out Sheehan to avoid conviction. Nixon's plumbers, and revelations about their improprieties, led to the dismissal of charges in any event. 

Still, it is nice to know this particular piece of what happened.  That the "leaker" tried to draw a procedural line and the reporter blew right through it. 

As a television news anchor at the time would have said. That's the way it is. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more