We all agree here that need to keep holding the MSM's feet to to the fire on the DSM front -- so let's start making it easier for them by spoon-feeding them more and better frames.
We're just days away from the 34th anniversary of the publication of the Pentagon Papers and, unless I've missed it, I have yet to see any substantive comparisons of the DSM to the Pentagon Papers' secret government study of decision-making about the Vietnam War. More below:
Let's use the 2006 anniversary of that publication. Let's demand coverage this week by pointing out the role that papers like the NYT played in bringing the Pentagon Papers to the public.
The NYT began publishing its series of reports on the Pentagon Papers exactly 34 years ago this week -- sparking a two-week federal court battle that pitted the U.S. government against the press that finally was decided by the Supreme Court.
Let's spell out this week the comparison between the MSM then, when it appeared to really care about its role as the Fourth Estate and the MSM now, which has to be cajoled into DSM investigation and coverage.
Ahh, the gold ole days. Remember? When the NYT was slapped with a TRO, the Washington Post starting publishing the Papers -- and then refused a request by Rehnquiest, then an Asst. U.S. Attorney General, to stop. This sparked a two-week legal battle alternately by the NYT and the Post -- and, during that two weeks, other major dailies began publishing parts of the Papers.
Within two weeks, the legal battles by the Post and the NYT landed at the Supremem Court. The date? Saturday, June 26, 1971. Four days after the cases were argued, the Supreme Court decided, in its 6-3 decision in New York Times Co. v. United States, that the government could not block publication of the Pentagon Papers.
People, we're in exactly the same place here -- and we should be demanding that the comparison to the Pentagon Papers get made.
I urge you to mention this frame loudly and repeatedly as you discuss the DSM, write your letters to the editor, and respond and comment to Conyers' fine efforts.
