The Post (2017)

The foundation of a democracy is a free press.  The government needs to be held accountable and the way to do this is to have an independent group reporting on not only current issues but on what the government is doing.  It’s understandable that a government would want to hold secrets, especially when it’s at war, but sometimes, those secrets need to be exposed.

Vietnam wasn’t some minor indiscretion.  American involvement was spread out over three presidential administrations.  There was all manner of documentation generated by the United States Government admitting that it may have made a mistake.

Enter Daniel Ellsberg, a former analyst who copies what would become known as The Pentagon Papers.  He passes them on to The New York Times.  When The Times is bared from publishing them, The Washington Post decides to pick up the torch.  When the lawyers are called in, they promptly express fear that the same thing might happen to The Post.  The decision is eventually made to run with the story.

The decision takes The Post to the Supreme Court right next to The Times.  Being that this is history, I don’t imagine that any of this is a surprise.  It should also come as no surprise that both newspapers are exonerated.  It was decided that both papers had done exactly what they were supposed to have done, which was to report the truth to the American people.

The decision ultimately rested on Kay Graham, who took over the paper when her husband died.  The movie has her in the middle of an IPO.  She’s worried about the exact asking price, as more money would mean a secure payroll for quality reporters.  The movie initially has her shown as somewhat weak, often unsure of herself.

I don’t imagine that this was an easy time for her. It’s bad enough having to plan for a major change to the paper, but to have to add an unexpected twist?  Publishing could mean arrests and, possibly, the end of The Washington Post.  She has to balance the business of the newspaper against the ethics of journalism.  The First Amendment is the first one for a reason.  That doesn’t matter, though, if there’s no one there to report the issues.

One thing I found a little odd was that the price of the stock was mentioned in dollars and cents.  Stock prices converted to decimal on April 9, 2001.  Before that, stock prices were listed in fractions of a dollar.  $42.50 would have been shown on a ticker as $42½.  It’s possible that people still said forty-two dollars and fifty cents, but it stuck out to me because I‘m old enough to remember it the old way.

The movie ends with the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, which ended Nixon’s presidency.  (At least he got to keep the dog.  Right?)   The release of the movie during the current presidential administration might be somewhat coincidental, but the message is still clear:  We need journalists to keep us informed.  The movie wasn’t preachy about it.  It wasn’t necessarily edge-of-your-seat material, either, but it was entertaining.  I would recommend seeing the movie.

IMDb page

Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press (2017)

You may not have heard of King Pyrrhus of Epirus.  He beat the Romans in the Battle of Heraclea, but suffered a greater proportional loss than the Romans did.  Thus, the term pyrrhic victory has come to mean a situation where one technically wins, but comes at a cost so high as to undo any advantage gained.

Terry Bollea may have suffered a similar victory in suing the gossip site Gawker.  If you’ve never heard the name Terry Bollea, either, you can be forgiven.  You may know him better as Hulk Hogan.  Gawker made public a sex tape of Hogan.  (Interestingly, the sex tape has its own IMDb page.)  Hogan then sued Gawker out of existence.  It’s natural to sue over something like this.  It’s a violation of his privacy.  He did win, but it ultimately cost him his relationship with the WWE.

The question isn’t so much if Hulk Hogan was correct in suing.  The documentary focuses on the role of an independent press.  Did Gawker have the right to publish the sex tape?  Since Hulk Hogan is a celebrity, then yes.  Not only would the tape be relevant, but there were parts to it that eventually came out and proved more damaging to Hulk Hogan than the original clip.

The documentary then pivots to the sale of the Las Vegas Review-Journal to a mysterious group of investors.  The reporters for the Review Journal suspected Sheldon Adelson of being part of that group.  The reporters investigated and found that they weren’t far off.  They ran with the story, which resulted in a lot of said reporters leaving the newspaper.

You’re probably wondering why I’d give away so much of the documentary.  Part of it is that it is history.  You may or may not have noticed Gawker going away.  You may or may not have read about the case in the paper.  However, I don’t consider it spoilers if it was a news story.  There is also the issue of the documentary making a good case.

When I added the documentary to my list on Netflix, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to watch it.  I’ve never been a fan of Hulk Hogan or wrestling in general.  I had come into it thinking that Gawker had done something sleazy and was now facing the music.  The documentary does make a good point of showing how even something as salacious as posting a sex video is worthy of protection under the First Amendment.  If we don’t protect Gawker, it sets precident for other media to be sued.

The important things for a journalist are accuracy and relevance.  Was it actually Hulk Hogan in the tape?  Yes.  All claims made by Gawker were accurate.  Was it relevant?  As it pertained to a celebrity, the answer is also yes.  I would agree that Gawker could have used some discretion.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

The point that the documentary makes is that a free press is necessary for a free society.  Part of their charge is to call out the excesses and misdeeds of those in charge.  This is why it’s so disturbing that President Trump would disparage the press.  He’s discrediting those who are supposed to be keeping an eye on him.  This is exactly why not interfering with the free press is engrained in the First Amendment.  Newspapers cannot be afraid of the government.

IMDb page