While no one could call it evenhanded, "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" is clear, concise, crisply paced and thoroughly researched. The Oscar-nominated film by Judy Ehrlich and Rich Goldsmith is not balanced in the traditional, "on the other hand" sense, yet it's a riveting history of one man's mission to expose the misdeeds of four U.S. presidents as they consistently misled the public about the purpose and conduct of the Vietnam War.
It is the phrase "not balanced in the traditional, 'on the other hand' sense."
We know that FOX News bills itself as "Fair and Balanced" but this is just so much pablum as was aptly demonstrated by the movie Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism which I watched at in 2004. As Outfoxed makes painfully and plainly clear - Fox News has an agenda - a political agenda, and a corporate agenda.
This traditional "on the other hand" sense: is this supposed to mean that if, for example, several Republican notables were to say that the "earth is flat," they should be given equal time to expounding their position (for balance) with scientists who have photos suggesting otherwise?
Later in the review, Covert writes
The 93-minute film presents few views challenging its thesis that Ellsberg is a great, selfless patriot. Not unless you count the fulminations of Richard Nixon in his profanity-laced White House audio tapes.
I have only seen portions of the film on Democracy Now. My understanding of the film, which is informed by my having read Ellsberg's Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers and Papers on the War is that Ellsberg did what he did with the Pentagon papers and wrote what he wrote about the Vietnam war because he believed that
(a) The government classifies as "top secret" way too much of the paper work it produces
(b) Because so much is classified as "top secret" we the people have no access to the often mundane information used by government officials to base their decisions, often life and death decisions, upon
(c) That the biggest obstacle to winding down the war in Vietnam, which was judged unwinnable very early on, was the President himself, because no President wanted to be the first to "lose" the war
(d) That documents are often classified to avoid embarrassing the officials whose decisions, in retrospect, look foolish, rash, poorly considered
And all this, Ellsberg believes, and continues to write about, leads to a situation where the only people able to inform the American public about life and death matters are those in the government who would "blow the whistle" on the government.
Clearly, Covert likes more than a little of the movie:
This isn't a dusty chapter of ancient history, but a fresh, exciting story. Ellsberg, who worked as a defense analyst in the government-funded RAND Corp., emerges as a complex and contradictory character. He was a Harvard-trained Cold Warrior turned antiwar crusader. His convictions were shaped by his battlefield experiences as a Marine battalion commander, by personal visits to Southeast Asia, and by his relationship with his dovish wife, Patricia.
After all, fresh, exciting stories about complex and contradictory characters who move 180 degrees in their outlook are stories about real change, and, depending on your politics, real growth.
In fact, this IS the type of tale that Maureen Dowd recently gushed about. It's been a long time coming.
