eibar news
For more infomation >> WATCH LIVE: The National for Monday February 26, 2018 - Federal Budget, Trump on Guns, Hedley - Duration: 1:04:34. 
For more infomation >> Easy News - Slow French - Learn French - KFC - Duration: 6:53. 
For more infomation >> Hannity 02/26/18 9PM | February 26, 2018 Breaking News - Duration: 33:54. 
For more infomation >> 공유 정유미 결혼설 부인 공효진 댓글로 상황 정리 -Tistory Korea News - Duration: 6:33. 
For more infomation >> Q2 News 5:30 p.m. Top Stories with Jay and Jeanelle, Monday 2-26-18 - Duration: 9:39. 
For more infomation >> 김어준의 블랙하우스 정규 편성 확정이 반가운 이유 - HOT NEWS 24H - Duration: 6:50. 
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
JIM: HI THERE.
I AM JIM ZIRIN.
WELCOME BACK TO MORE
"CONVERSATIONS." STEVEN
SPIELBERG'S "THE POST",
THE CINEMATIC DRAMATIZATION
ABOUT THE "WASHINGTON POST"
IN THE LANDMARK 1971
PENTAGON PAPERS CASE IS UP FOR
TWO OSCARS, BEST PICTURE OF
THE YEAR AND BEST ACTRESS
FOR MERYL STREEP'S EPIC
PORTRAYAL OF THE POSTS
PUBLISHER KATHARINE GRAHAM.
"THE POST" STRIKES A PARTICULAR
CHORD WITH ITS STORYLINE,
HIGHLY RELEVANT TO TODAY'S
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WITH
PRESS FREEDOMS UNDER SUCH
SHARP ATTACK.
BUT HOW FAITHFUL IS THE FILM TO
THE FACTS OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS
CASE? IS THE ROLE OF THE
WASHINGTON POST
EXAGGERATED OR OVERBLOWN,
OR JUST PLAIN FICTION?
WAS IN FACT THE "NEW YORK TIMES"
AND NOT THE "WASHINGTON POST"
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?
WE HAVE JAMES GOODALE, FORMER
COUNSEL OF THE "NEW YORK TIMES,"
WHO HELPED DIRECT THE LEGAL
FIGHT IN THE PENTAGON PAPERS
DRAMA. BUT ALSO THE FOUNDER
OF THIS PROGRAM. JIM GOODALE,
WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU
BACK.
JAMES: I'M GLAD TO BE HERE JIM.
JIM: GOOD. NOW, LET ME ASK YOU,
DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE?
JAMES: I SAW THE MOVIE.
JIM: WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE
MOVIE?
JAMES: I LIKED IT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS ENTERTAINING.
I THOUGHT MERYL STREEP
WAS TERRIFIC.
JIM: TOM HANKS?
JAMES: NOT SO TERRIFIC.
JIM: STEVEN SPIELBERG, DIRECTED
IT AND HOW WAS THE DIRECTION?
JAMES: I THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD
DIRECTION.
IT WAS A GOOD FILM BUT BAD
HISTORY.
JIM: BAD HISTORY.
THE FILM DEALS WITH THE DECISION
OF THE "WASHINGTON POST" TO
PUBLISH THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THE
PENTAGON PAPERS AND WHY IT WAS
SUCH A WEIGHTY DECISION.
JAMES: IT WAS VOLUMES OF HISTORY
EDITED BY LES GALB, FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
IT WAS A GREAT HISTORY.
IT WAS HUGE.
THE PROBLEM FROM A PUBLICATION
POINT OF VIEW IS THAT IT WAS ALL
CLASSIFIED.
IT WAS ALL CLASSIFIED,
TOP-SECRET.
SO THE QUESTION BECAME -- IS IT
LEGAL TO PUBLISH SOMETHING THAT
HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED, TOP-SECRET?
MY ANSWER TO THAT, SINCE I HAVE
BEEN IN THE INTELLIGENCE WORLD,
IS THE CLASSIFICATION STAMP
DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING.
I KNEW PERFECTLY WELL BECAUSE I
HAD STAMPED ARTICLES FOR THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" EMBEDDED IN THE
STUDY THAT I DID LIKE THE
PENTAGON PAPERS, THAT WERE TOP
SECRET.
JIM: GOOD ARTICLE.
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: VERY GOOD ARTICLES.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE TOP-SECRET.
WHILE THAT WAS MY POINT OF VIEW,
THE JOURNALISTS, THE OWNERS OF
THE PAPER WERE VERY CONCERNED
THAT THEY MIGHT GO TO JAIL, AND
I THINK THEY HAD SOME CONCERN,
NOT AS MUCH CONCERN AS THEY
THOUGHT, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT
TOOK GREAT COURAGE TO PUBLISH
THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
"NEW YORK TIMES," A FIRM CALLED
LORD DAY & LORD, NO LONGER WITH
US, ADVISE THE PUBLISHER OF THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" THAT HE WOULD
GO TO JAIL, AND THEY ALSO SAID
IT WOULD NOT LOOK AT THE PAPERS
BECAUSE THEY WOULD GO TO JAIL,
SO HE WAS SCARED TO DEATH.
JIM: WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOOT YOU
IF YOU LOOKED AT HIM.
JAMES: BESIDES BEING SCARED
HE WENT AHEAD AND PUBLISHED.
JIM: LET'S PAUSE FOR A MOMENT.
THEY RECEIVED A LETTER OF
WARNING FROM PRESIDENT NIXON'S
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN MITCHELL
TELLING THE "TIMES" NOT TO
PUBLISH.
JAMES: THAT IS CORRECT.
THE "TIMES" PUBLISHED FOR TWO
DAYS, AND THEN WE GOT THIS
TELEGRAM TELLING US TO STOP IT,
OR WE WILL STOP YOU IN COURT,
HERE IS THE STATUTE, AND YOU MAY
GO TO JAIL WAS THE IMPLICATION
SO FORTH AND SO ON.
JIM: SO, THAT WAS A DECISION,
JIM GOODALE, FOR YOU TO ADVISE
THE POWERS THAT BE AT THE "NEW
YORK TIMES," FORGET ABOUT GOING
TO JAIL, PUBLISH IT FIRST, GO TO
JAIL LATER.
WHAT INFORMED THAT DECISION?
JAMES: A COUPLE OF THINGS.
EMOTIONALLY, NIXON WAS AN ENEMY
OF THE PRESS AT THAT TIME, JUST
AS BAD AS TRUMP WAS.
SO THERE WAS A TIME TO MY TWO OR
THREE YEARS WHERE WE WENT
THROUGH A TRUMP SITUATION, SO IN
THAT FRAME OF MIND, YOU START
BUILDING YOUR DEFENSES IF YOU
ARE A LAWYER, WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
SO THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT
EXPERIENCE, I BECAME VERY
FAMILIAR WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
JIM: HOW FAMILIAR DO YOU HAVE TO
BE? IT JUST SAYS CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE NO LAW BRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
JAMES: YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
SO, BUT THE FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
HERBERT BROWNELL, VERY WELL
RESPECTED, GOOD GUY, HE SAID TO
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL YOU
ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL --
JIM: THE PUBLISHER OF THE "NEW
YORK TIMES."
JAMES: YES.
I BECAME STEEPED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND THE BASIC CONCEPT
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE
REASON THAT WE HAVE IT WAS TO
STOP CENSORSHIP OF ANY KIND,
PARTICULARLY FROM THE COURTS.
SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PENTAGON
PAPERS WAS CALLED A PRIOR
RESTRAINT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THAT IS
WHY IT WAS WRITTEN.
THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
YOU ASKED ME, I KNEW I WAS GOING
TO WIN.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SAID.
JIM: YOUR ADVICE WAS TO PUBLISH.
JAMES: MY ADVICE WAS TO PUBLISH,
BUT I TOLD THEM OF THE RISK.
I DID NOT THINK THEY REALLY
LISTENED TO ME ON THAT POINT.
JIM: THE PAPERS THEMSELVES
REFLECTED BADLY ON THE TWO PRIOR
DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS
THAT PRECEDED NIXON AND THEY
WERE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.
WHY WAS NIXON SO HELL-BENT
IN STOPPING PUBLICATION IF HE
HAD BEEN THE CRAFTY GUY WE
ALL THINK OF HIM AS?
WHY DIDN'T HE SAY "LET IT RIP,"
THEN I CAN CRITICIZE JOHNSON
AND KENNEDY AND SAY IT'S ALL
THEIR FAULT.
JAMES: YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY?
HE WAS IGNORANT. HIS LAWYER
WAS JOHN MITCHELL --
JIM: WHO WENT TO JAIL LATER.
JOHN MITCHELL WENT TO JAIL.
JAMES: HE WENT TO JAIL, RIGHT,
AND HE HAD AN IMMINENT CAREER IN
NEW YORK OF BEING A BOND LAWYER,
AND HE CALLED NIXON AND TOLD
HIM, JOINING THE NEWSPAPER,
SO WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD
AND DO IT. BAD ADVICE.
THAT IS THE ORIGINAL REASON HE
DID IT IN LARGE PART, BUT HE
ALSO WAS GOADED BY HENRY
KISSINGER, BECAUSE KISSINGER
SAID TO HIM -- "YOU HAVE
GOT TO STOP THEM, OR YOU WILL BE
PERCEIVED AS BEING WEAK."
JIM: SO HOW MANY DAYS DID THE
"TIMES" PUBLISHED EXPERTS OF THE
PENTAGON PAPERS?
JAMES: THREE. THEY PUBLISHED
TWO BEFORE THEY GOT THE
TELEGRAM.
I TOLD THE "TIMES," IF SOMEONE
SENDS YOU A TELEGRAM,
YOU DON'T STOP PUBLISHING SO
THEY PUBLISHED A THIRD TIME.
THEN THEY GOT ENJOINED.
JIM: THEY WERE ENJOINED
PRELIMINARILY BY THE DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK.
SO THEY STOPPED PUBLISHING.
JAMES: THEY STOPPED PUBLISHING.
JIM: AND IN "THE
WASHINGTON POST".
JAMES: AND IN "THE WASHINGTON
POST" RIGHT.
JIM: WHICH IS WHAT THE MOVIE IS
ABOUT. IT'S AS IF NONE OF THIS
REALLY HAPPENED. ENTER "THE
WASHINGTON POST".
JAMES: DAN ELLSBERG WAS THE
PERSON WHO LEAKED THE PENTAGON
PAPERS.
HE WAS A LEAKER.
JIM: BAD GUY!
JAMES: I DIDN'T THINK SO.
JIM: DIDN'T KISSINGER SAY HE WAS
THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN
AMERICA?
JAMES: THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE --
HOW BAD ARE LEAKS.
THE PENTAGON PAPERS HAD 15 OR
20 ADDITIONS, SO TO SPEAK, OR
COPIES GIVEN TO THE RAND
CORPORATION.
THE RAND CORPORATION WAS
ADVISING THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE
U.S.-VIETNAM WAR.
HE COPIED THEM, WALKED OUT,
NOBODY STOPPED HIM.
HE STARTED SHOWING THEM TO
VARIOUS PEOPLE, HOPING HE WOULD
GET CONGRESS TO RELEASE IT, AND
HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY.
HE, HOWEVER FAILED, AND HE GAVE
THE COPIES TO NEIL SHEEHAN --
JIM: A REPORTER FOR THE "NEW
YORK TIMES," WHO AT TIMES WON A
PULITZER PRIZE FOR THE
PAPERS.
"WASHINGTON POST" DID NOT.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" WON A
PULITZER FOR WATERGATE, BUT THIS
WAS NOT WATERGATE.
WEREN'T THEY WORRIED THAT
THESE PAPERS WHO AT BEEN LEAKED
TO THEM BY ELLSBERG WERE
AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THAT WAS THE BIG QUESTION
FOR THE "TIMES," BECAUSE IF YOU
QUOTE ELLSBERG TODAY,
MOST PEOPLE KNOW WHO HE IS.
BUT THEN THE "TIMES" HAD TO
ASSUME THAT SOMEONE FROM THE
STATE DEPARTMENT HAD JUST PUT
THEM UNDER ONE'S ARM AND WALKED
OUT.
THE RISK WAS, FIRST OF ALL, THAT
THEY MIGHT BE FAKE.
SECONDLY, THAT THEY VIOLATED
NATIONAL SECURITY, SO THOSE WERE
BIG RISKS FOR THE "TIMES," WHICH
HAD TO DEAL WITH IT, AND IT TOOK
THREE MONTHS FOR THE "TIMES" TO
DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
JIM: WHAT ABOUT POSSESSION OF
STOLEN PROPERTY?
JAMES: I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS
AN ISSUE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAW, IF YOUR
AUDIENCE IS INTERESTED IN LAW-
JIM: WELL YOU'RE SUPPOSE TO
HAVE LAW, IT'S SUPPOSE TO BE
RELEVANT.
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: IT SEEMED LIKE THE ONLY
LAW THAT APPLIED WAS WITH
RESPECT TO THEFT OF JEEPS,
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY LIKE THAT,
BUT NOT COPYING --
JIM: IT WAS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY?
POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS COULD
COVER INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, IF
IT IS A COPYRIGHTED BOOK.
ANYWAY, YOU DID NOT THINK THAT
WAS AN ISSUE.
[LAUGHS]
JIM: THEY MIGHT HAVE GONE TO
JAIL FOR POSSESSION OF STOLEN
PROPERTIES. YOU ADVISED THEM
TO PUBLISH.
NEIL SHEEHAN HAD SPENT HOW MANY
MONTHS OF WORK TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE
AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THREE MONTHS.
JIM: HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF
THEY ARE AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: WHAT HE DID DURING THAT
THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS ASSEMBLED
STAFF, COUPLE OF LIBRARIANS,
PUT THEM IN THE HILTON
HOTEL, AND THEY STARTED LOOKING
AT EVERY BOOK THAT HAD BEEN
WRITTEN ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR
AND THEY TOOK EVERY FACTUAL
STATEMENT OF ANY IMPORTANCE AND
TRIED TO CONNECT IT TO A
PUBLISHED FACTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THE PAPERS
HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE.
JIM: DID THEY FIND THAT MUCH OF
THIS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WAS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
JAMES: IT WAS PRETTY MUCH ALL IN
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
JIM: HOW MUCH OF IT WAS FACT,
AND HOW MUCH OF IT WAS OPINION?
A LOT OF IT WAS OPINION, RATHER
THAN FACT, WASN'T IT?
JAMES: WELL, IT WAS HISTORY, SO
YOU GET THE FACTS PUT IN ORDER,
WHICH REFLECTS AN OPINION.
IS AN OPINION CLASSIFIED?
YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE
THE CLASSIFICATION BECOMES
REALLY RATHER SILLY WHEN
YOU'RE DEALING WITH PUBLIC
DOMAIN MATERIAL THAT IS SOURCED
THROUGH THE "NEW YORK TIMES"
AND YOU ASK YOURSELF,
AND IT WAS SOURCED THROUGH
"THE NEW YORK TIMES",
HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT COME
IN AND PENALIZE SOMEONE FROM
PUBLISHING WHAT THEY'VE
ALREADY PUBLISHED.
THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES.
BUT THAT WAS THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLE.
JIM: WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION?
IT WAS THAT IT AFFECTED NATIONAL
SECURITY.
IT WOULD DO IRREPARABLE HARM
TO THE PUBLIC IF IT WAS
PUBLISHED, IT HAD CASES LIKE THE
PUBLICATION OF SHIP SAILING
DATES IN WARTIME, AND THE
SUPREME COURT SAID THAT COULD BE
ENJOINED BECAUSE IT IS
CLASSIFIED, AND WE HAVE TO
PROTECT THE STATE SECRETS.
WHY WASN'T THIS LIKE THAT?
WHY WASN'T IT SOMETHING THAT
THE PUBLIC WAS ENTITLED TO?
JAMES: THERE WERE TWO WAYS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO GET YOU.
IN THE TELEGRAM THAT THEY
SENT TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES,
THEY SAID YOU" ARE VIOLATING THE
ESPIONAGE ACT, WHICH BY
THE WAY IS FOR ESPIONAGE.
THAT IS WHY THEY TRIED TO STOP
THE "TIMES" FROM PUBLISHING.
IF SOMEBODY LEAKS
TO ANOTHER PERSON, THAT IS
HARDLY ESPIONAGE, BECAUSE THERE
IS NO DELIVERY TO A FOREIGN
POWER.
JIM: THERE IS NO OFFICIAL
SECRETS ACT, AS THEY DO IN
ENGLAND.
JAMES: THAT IS RIGHT.
WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT.
IN THE U.K., THE BRITS DON'T
HAVE IT. SO THE
GOVERNMENT HAD TO ATTACK US ON
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WAS A CASE
THAT IMPLY THAT IF YOU PUBLISHED
THE DATE OF A SAILING SHIP, THAT
YOU COULD STOP THAT UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.
THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, HAD NEVER
BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT.
EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS AN
ARTICULATION OF WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN BY THE SUPREME COURT,
THEY HAD NEVER DECIDED THAT
ISSUE, SO THERE WAS AN OPENING
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
MAKE AN ARGUMENT, IN THIS CASE,
THAT YOU COULD NOT PENALIZE THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" FOR PUBLISHING
THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
JIM: SO YOU GET SERVED WITH A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND
YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT, AND YOU
APPEARED BEFORE A JUDGE IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO
ENJOIN YOU, AND YOU ARE TRYING
TO RESIST IT, AND THERE IS A
HEARING.
WHAT HAPPENED?
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: WELL, I FOUND ALL OF THIS
RATHER AMUSING.
JIM: YOU WERE NOT GOING TO JAIL!
JAMES: WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE
GOVERNMENT COMES IN, THEY PUT
SOMEBODY ON THE STAND TO SAY WHY
THESE WERE CLASSIFIED, THESE
DOCUMENTS.
AND IT TURNED OUT THAT HE DID
NOT REALLY CLASSIFY IT, HIS
GIRLFRIEND HAD
CLASSIFIED THEM. AND HIS
GIRLFRIEND HAD WORKED SOME
OTHER PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.
HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE PUT
A CLASSIFIED STAMP ON IT.
THAT WAS THE FIRST THING.
THAT WAS AN OPEN HEARING WHERE
THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS CAME IN,
AND THAT WAS IN THE VIETNAM WAR
PROTEST ERA.
AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A SECRET,
MYSTERIOUS HEARING DOWN IN THE
BASEMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT
BUILDING, AND THEY PULLED DOWN
THE SHADES.
THEY WENT DOWN THROUGH THE SAME
THING.
JIM: THAT IS WHERE WE USED TO
WATCH PORNOGRAPHY. TO SEE IF
THERE WERE PORNOGRAPHIC
SCENES.
JAMES: I DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS
SUCH A ROOM.
I WAS IMPRESSED.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE SAME
ARGUMENT AGAIN.
THIS IS WHY THIS IS CLASSIFIED.
I SAT THERE LOOKING AT THE
JUDGE, AND EVERY TIME THEY CAME
UP WITH ANOTHER REASON, HE WOULD
LOOK AT THEM LIKE SAYING "WHAT
THE HELL ARE YOU TELLING ME?"
AND BASICALLY, THEY WENT INTO
THIS SECRET AREA, AND THEY
COULD NOT PROVE ANYMORE THAT
THERE WERE SECRETS IN THERE THAT
DAMAGED NATIONAL SECURITY AND
WERE ABLE TO IN THE HEARING THAT
PROCEEDED, WHICH WAS IN OPEN
COURT.
JIM: SO WHILE YOU'RE DOING THIS,
AND THESE PEOPLE ARE TESTIFYING
AND SAYING I DIDN'T DO IT,
MY GIRLFRIEND DID,
"THE WASHINGTON POST" WAS
PUBLISHING!
JAMES: ELLSBERG, GOT A HOLD OF
THE COPIES AS I STARTED SAYING
EARLIER, HAD A WHOLE GROUP OF
FRIENDS, THEY STARTED SHIPPING,
GETTING READY TO SHIP THEM OUT,
AND THE FIRST PERSON, THE FIRST
ENTITY THAT THE GROUP SUBMITTED
THEIR PAPERS TO WAS THE
"WASHINGTON POST."
THEY DID NOT GET ALL, BUT THEY
GOT A BIG HUNK FROM ELLSBERG,
CALLED ONE OF THE "WASHINGTON
POST" REPORTERS, AND THEY HAD TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO PUBLISH THEM
OR NOT.
JIM: WHAT STEPS DID THEY TAKE TO
SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THE
PAPERS WERE AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THEY DID NOT TAKE ANY,
REALLY.
I MEAN, THEY SPENT EIGHT HOURS
TRYING TO DO WHAT THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" HAD DONE IN
THREE MONTHS AND SO BASICALLY
THEY DIDN'T.
THEY TOOK THE FACT THAT THE
"TIMES" HAD PUBLISHED IT, AND
THEY COULD PUBLISH IT.
JIM: IN THE MOVIE, THERE IS A
WONDERFUL SCENE WHERE THEY SEND
A REPORTER POSING AS A DELIVERY
BOY INTO THE OFFICES OF THE
"NEW YORK TIMES," AND HE IS
ASKING IF THEY AUTHENTICATE IT,
THEY ALL SAID YES, HE
RUSHES BACK AND SAYS THEY ARE
AUTHENTIC, AND THEY ARE GOING TO
PUBLISH IT UNLESS WE PUBLISH IT.
DID ANY OF THAT HAPPENED?
JAMES: NO.
THAT IS ALL HOLLYWOOD.
JIM: I COULD NOT RUN INTO THE
PRESSROOM IN THE "NEW YORK
TIMES" AND LOOK OVER
ABE ROSENTHAL'S SHOULDER AND
SEE WHAT WAS ON HIS MIND.
JAMES: YOU HAVE TO GIVE
SPIELBERG SOME LICENSE TO MAKE
AN ENTERTAINING FILM.
BUT HE MADE UP SO MUCH AND PUT
THE WHOLE MATTER OUT OF KILTER.
IT IS HARD TO SAY THE FILM IS
AUTHENTIC.
IT MAY BE ENTERTAINING, BUT I DO
NOT THINK IT IS AUTHENTIC.
JIM: THE SCREENWRITER, MISS
HANNAH, SAID AFTER SHE READ AN
ARTICLE YOU WROTE IN THE "DAILY
BEAST" IN WHICH YOU DEBUNKED THE
MOVIE, SHE SAID THIS MOVIE IS
NOT ABOUT THE PENTAGON PAPERS IN
"THE POST" AT ALL, IT IS
ABOUT WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE AND
THE COURAGE OF KATHARINE GRAHAM
AND DECIDING TO PUBLISH.
WHAT TRUTH IS THERE TO THAT?
JAMES: SHE WENT ON A PROGRAM
AND SAID THIS IS A "WASHINGTON
POST" STORY.
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" HAS ITS OWN
STORY.
BUT WHAT ABOUT HISTORY?
IT DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH HISTORY.
WELL, "THE POST," THE PRODUCER,
STEVEN SPIELBERG, GOT HIMSELF IN
A REAL MESS WITH ALL OF THIS.
THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENED IS
SPIELBERG PUT OUT A PROMO SAYING
THEY WERE GOING TO DO A MOVIE
ABOUT "THE POST" AND THE PAPERS.
EVERYONE SCREAMED AND YELLED.
NOW IT WAS NO LONGER ABOUT "THE
POST" AND PAPERS.
IT WAS ABOUT "THE POST."
THEN THEY SAID IT IS NOT ABOUT
THE PAPERS, IT IS NOT REALLY
ABOUT "THE POST" AS IT IS ABOUT
KAY GRAHAM.
SO SPIELBERG HAD TO RETRACT,
RE-DO THE THEORY OF THE
MOVIE. AND THEN, THE SCRIPT
HAD LEFT OUT THE "NEW YORK
TIMES".
THE SCRIPT THAT HAD KAY GRAHAM
ARGUING BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT, SO SPIELBERG SAID HEY,
THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE
"NEW YORK TIMES." SO THEN THEY
WENT AND HIRED ANOTHER
WRITER, WHO HAD DONE THE
"BOSTON GLOBE" STORY ON
SPOTLIGHT AND WON THE
PULITZER PRIZE. THE NEW WRITER
CAME IN AND ADDED ON THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" PART SO
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOVIE,
IT STARTS WITH THE "NEW YORK
TIMES," BUT IT'S JUST AN
ADD-ON, AND THEN IT GOES TO "THE
POST," AND "THE POST" GOES
OUT SCREAMING TRIUMPANT
PUBLISHER.
JIM: SO IN YOUR VIEW, DID
KAY GRAHAM SHOW COURAGE
IN DECIDING TO PUBLISH?
THEY MAKE IT APPEAR IN THE
MOVIE THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST
MAJOR DECISION SHE HAD TO MAKE
AS PUBLISHER OF "THE POST, BUT
SHE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT YEARS.
SHE WASN'T NEW TO MAJOR
DECISIONS.
SHE DECIDED TO PUBLISH.
NOW SHE DID HAVE A PENDING
PUBLIC OFFERING, WHICH MIGHT
HAVE BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF
THE GOVERNMENT HAD INDICTED "THE
POST," OR IF THEY HAD TAKEN
TERRIBLE ACTION AGAINST "THE
POST."
SOME COURAGE WAS INVOLVED.
MAYBE LESS COURAGE-
JAMES: NO QUESTION SOME COURAGE
BECAUSE YOU ARE PUBLISHING
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, BUT THE
IDEA THAT THEY WERE ASSUMING THE
RISK OF GOING TO JAIL AND ALL
THAT SORT OF THING WAS EASY FOR
HER TO ASSUME.
AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH IN
THE MOVIE ABOUT THAT DECISION.
EASY?
SHE KNEW THE "TIMES" HAD DONE
IT, AND SHE KNEW THE "TIMES"
HAD DONE IT WITH LEGAL ADVICE.
THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM.
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PUBLISH
SOMETHING THAT WAS FAKE.
THOSE TWO ITEMS, WHICH WAS VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THE "NEW YORK
TIMES," AND THE BASIS OF THEIR
DECISION REALLY DID NOT APPLY TO
HER.
WHAT DID APPLY TO HER AND NOT TO
THE "TIMES" WAS, AS YOU SAID,
SHE HAD A PUBLIC OFFERING.
IN THE MOVIE, IT WAS DEPICTED
AS PROVIDING MONEY FOR
REPORTERS AT THE "WASHINGTON
POST," IN OTHER WORDS, IF I DO
NOT IN THIS OFFERING, I WILL NOT
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO STAY IN
BUSINESS.
I DECIDED TO GO LOOK AT THE
OFFERING.
THE OFFERING WAS TO PAY HER
ESTATE TAXES AND ALSO TO PAY OFF
EXECUTIVES WHO HAD GOTTEN HUGE
MILLION-DOLLAR OPTIONS.
30 YEARS AGO, $1 MILLION WAS A
MILLION DOLLARS.
THERE WAS NO ONE TO BUY THEM
OUT.
THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE
TREASURY OF THE "WASHINGTON
POST" HAD TO BUY OUT THEIR KEY
EMPLOYEES, SO THEY THOUGHT OF
THIS IDEA WELL, WE WON'T DO
THAT. WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC.
SO THE PUBLIC'S MONEY
COMES IN AND BUYS THEM OFF.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
JIM: SHE WANTED THE PUBLIC
OFFERING TO GO THROUGH.
JAMES: YOU KNOW WHAT,
SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE
PUBLIC OFFERING?
YOU KNOW WHY SHE DID NOT WANT TO
HAVE THE PUBLIC OFFERING?
BECAUSE THAT MEANT HER FAMILY
HAD TO GIVE UP SOME CONTROL TO
THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
COULD THEN HAVE A BOARD.
SHE DID NOT WANT TO DO IT.
HER ADVISOR WAS A NEW YORK
LAWYER, AS WE ARE, SUPPOSEDLY
THE PINNACLE OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION IN NEW YORK, FRITZ
BEEBE, SAID HEY, YOU HAVE GOT
TO DO IT, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE
ANY MONEY TO PAY OFF THOSE
EMPLOYEES.
SO SHE DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS
TOO MUCH.
HOWEVER, SHE HAD AGREED TO DO
IT, AND SHE WAS TOLD IT WAS A
POSSIBILITY THE WHOLE THING
WOULD FALL APART.
SO THAT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION
TO MAKE, BUT IT WAS COURAGEOUS
IN THE SAME EXTENT.
BUT IT WASN'T EASY.
JIM: OKAY, SO THE "TIMES" CASE
ROLLS ON, THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIES THE INJUNCTION
BUT THERE'S A STAY,
IT GOES TO THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. SOME JUDGES THINK
YOU SHOULD PUBLISH, SOME JUDGES
THINK YOU SHOULD NOT PUBLISH, SO
THEY KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD,
AND YOU HAVE THE GOVERNMENT
EXACTLY WHERE YOU WANT IT IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT. WHAT
WERE YOUR EMOTIONS AS YOU
LISTENED TO THE JUDGES AND YOU
LISTENED TO THE LAWYERS
ARGUE THE CASE?
JAMES: I CANNOT SAY THAT I WAS
NOT A LITTLE SCARED.
THE SUPREME COURT IS SUCH A
MAGIC, A MAJESTICAL PLACE.
HERE WE HAD GONE FROM VIETNAM
PROTESTERS HISSING AT THE
JUDGES, CROWDS OF PEOPLE
FOLLOWING US, AND IT WAS A NOISY
TWO WEEKS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU ARE IN
TOTAL QUIET.
YOU REALIZE THAT THE DIGNITY OF
THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO LOOK
AT THIS THING THAT YOU HAVE
LIVED WITH FOR A PERIOD OF TIME,
AND YOU DID NOT KNOW HOW IT IS
GOING TO COME OUT.
JIM: THE ARGUMENTS ARE -- DID
YOU FEEL YOU HAD WON IT?
JAMES: I THOUGHT WE HAD WON IT.
I TOOK A VOTE WITH THE OTHERS
WHO WERE WITH ME,
AND OTHERS SAID YOU LOST.
JIM: WHEN YOU LEARNED, I GUESS
A FEW WEEKS LATER
THAT YOU'D WON THE CASE
7-2.
JAMES: 6-3.
JIM: THREE JUDGES WERE AGAINST
YOU, SIX WERE FOR YOU.
6-3, YOU WON THE CASE,
WHAT WERE YOUR EMOTIONS AT
THAT TIME?
JAMES: I WAS PRETTY HAPPY.
JIM: JAMES GOODALE WAS PRETTY
HAPPY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, JAMES
GOODALE BECAUSE WE'VE COME
TO THE END OF OUR TIME, AND
THE QUESTION IS, IS "THE POST"
THE MOVIE FAKE NEWS?
JAMES: YES, IT IS.
JIM: JAMES GOODALE, THANKS FOR
COMING BY AND THANK YOU FOR
COMING BY.
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR MORE
"CONVERSATIONS."
I'M JIM ZIRIN.
ALL THE BEST AND TAKE CARE.
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét