<i>The Post</i>, opening for this weekend's cinema trade, is an unfortunate movie in the spirit of <i>All the President's Men</i> that lionises but lies about what happened during seminal moments in recent US history.
And like that old Robert Redford film about how the Washington Post's ace cadet reporters brought down Richard Nixon's abusive Watergate schemes, so The Post details how the same newspaper busted the very same president's evil plan to cover up the Vietnam War secrets by killing American freedom of the press.
It's terrific cinema, both ways. The new film has Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, and that combination is instant box office, instant Oscar.
And make no mistake here. Before we get to the semi-important bits, The Post is a very good movie, as you'd expect with those actors and Steven Spielberg putting it all together.
Now the semi-important bits. As stated above, the movie is a dramatisation of an extremely important moment. And the drama is very good, but it's not a dramatisation. "Based on actual events" is simply not history.
Like the prevaricating movie version of the Watergate scandal got the only important part of the story so very wrong, The Post gets the only two important parts of the Pentagon Papers story so wrong you have to figure it's an agenda. Millions, literally, are going to learn the history of this very important legal battle from Hollywood, and Hollywood is so wrong that it's simply falsification.
By all means enjoy this movie, but as fiction.
Flashback. All the President's Men presented a tale of journalistic derring-do by two young (and often cavalier) reporters who uncovered terrible things about the Richard Nixon presidency and forced Nixon to resign. In fact, Nixon was brought down by dogged, extended investigation by committees of the US Congress and the FBI. Unpleasant fact: The FBI fed bits of the investigation to the Washington Post and controlled the newspaper's story.
Present day. The Post gets the only two important parts of the Pentagon Papers story backwards. Both of them.
First, Nixon and his administration had nothing to do with the Pentagon Papers. That vast (17-volume) collection of secret documents was completely, totally and entirely written, assembled, classified "top secret" and stored away before Nixon became president. The villains of the actual papers are Nixon's predecessors -- "Saint" John F Kennedy and Lyndon B "LBJ" Johnson. It was their war, and their Pentagon Papers contained the details.
Second, it's important to know the point of the Pentagon Papers. They were the first major "document dump" in US history, pre-dating Wikileaks by 40 years. A previously obscure US government worker, Daniel Ellsberg (think Chelsea Manning) dumped the vast collection of documents on the Washington Post (Wikileaks).
Contrary to the movie's claim and main theme, Nixon's role in real life had nothing to do with trying to cover up the Pentagon Papers. They were already out, and the secrecy was over. The US Supreme Court case detailed dramatically in the movie was one of the most important cases ever concerning freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But it was over a small legal point: whether the government could enjoin the newspaper from printing secret documents -- as the government does, say, in Britain (and far too often).
There was never a question, as the movie suggests, that the newspaper faced much of a threat. Katherine Graham, portrayed by Streep as publisher of the newspaper, was in no danger of losing her baby.
What the Post newspaper could have lost, and didn't, was the fine and actually unique American right to publish or speak anything without government interference. If the court had not told Nixon to back off, and let the newspaper publish, the Post would have lost its scoop.
Nixon was not fighting against freedom of the press. He was fighting for the government's right to put a "top secret" stamp on information to prevent it from publication. The justices laughed that out of the court.
Because of that case, here we are today where the US press can print anything that's dropped on its doorstep, even if it's dropped by a traitor or actual thief. The government can't stop publication with a D-notice, and the government can't prosecute after publication for revealing secrets.
The previous movie about the downfall of Nixon taught a generation that reporters should "follow the money" (a 100% Hollywood line) and bring down presidents. The current Streep-Hanks saga teaches millions that Nixon got caught trying to cover up the Vietnam War he started and prosecuted.
In fact, when the Pentagon Papers were publicised, Nixon was winding down the Vietnam War. When the case went to trial -- contrary to the impression left by Spielberg and his actors -- there weren't even any US combat troops in Vietnam. The papers, including all their juicy facts about duplicity, dealt with the 1945-1967 buildup and pursuit of the war, and ended two years before Nixon became president.
Hollywood could have got the important parts right and made a terrific movie, both. Instead, the entertainment industry again decided to present a false story. Most people don't care, but history does.
Alan Dawson is former UPI Saigon bureau chief and a columnist with the Bangkok Post.