My father always said "analogies are dangerous." Many people including some movie critics assume that "The Post" has a purpose of warning us about Donald Trump and the circle around him. Having just watched the movie, I'd say no suggestion of that type was made directly. We must infer.
By buying that premise, you're suggesting that something truly dangerous is underway with Trump. I'd readily agree. But we must not assume that this is proceeding in a way hearkening to Watergate. That was then, this is now. Nixon had a long resume in government before he became president. Trump?
We cheer as the good guys win in the closing stages of "The Post." The good guys ought to win in movies, right? But the good guys don't always win in real life. Trump is not being humbled at all by the pressures appearing to come down on him. He has a Republican Party most of which continues to be deferential toward him. These are Republicans who do not recognize simple fairness, honesty and good sense. Something different is happening in our political culture and the landscape of the whole United States.
Nixon and Watergate happened in totally "analog" times. We feel particular fascination about this as we watch "The Post." Most striking is the scene where that exasperated guy is dealing with a pay telephone.
I don't recall the television news media being portrayed in the movie. But that's where most people got their daily dose of Watergate coverage. Most of them would say the coverage was "ad nauseum." No, "The Post" is quite specifically about the print media, our newspapers. Stressed reporters sit at their manual typewriters in a noisy newsroom. The top people have their dramatic little conferences in which they're quite aware of their power.
Watergate seemed less scary than what we're dealing with, with Trump. We had "gatekeepers" in the media who knew they had to be trustworthy. Tom Hanks plays a role that reveals this fully. Meryl Streep plays the newspaper owner who exudes genuine conscience. We see an actor playing Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg is prominent as the movie begins and then he mysteriously fades away. There is so much tragedy in the background: the tragedy of the Vietnam war. I was a little too young to really worry about the draft. I remember watching a speech on TV by Nelson Rockefeller where he proposed a draft "lottery." How about this proposal: get our young men out of Vietnam as fast and as safely as possible?
I would have liked to see The Smothers Brothers portrayed in this movie. For one thing, that would have brought in the television element. So would a portrayal of Walter Cronkite making his little editorial which seems so mild and obvious today, but was considered a turning point at the time.
Were newspapers really the hero?
Maybe it's a stereotype that the print media dominated the unraveling of Watergate. The movie "All the President's Men" reinforced the perception of the primacy of print. What of all the legal and political figures who are ubiquitous in the "Beltway" - what of their sensibilities and professional skills to try to deal with Vietnam and Nixon's excesses? They would seem to be the proper people to address the issues and protect the American people. The media only had the power to search for secrets and then report them. It worked during that epoch of U.S. history. It is not the ideal system. We cannot assume that the system will deliver again in this age of Trump. Trump is almost literally crazy. I cringe as I wonder about all the ramifications when the dominoes start falling.
"The Post" is a fresh movie, having come out in 2017. Thanks to our Morris MN Public Library for having it available on DVD.
The movie ends with a perfect segue to "All The President's Men" as we see a police officer with flashlight investigating the strange break-in at the Watergate Hotel. The fictional Forrest Gump made the phone call alerting police, remember? Seriously, what if police hadn't been alerted to that? Tom Hanks plays Ben Bradlee, executive editor of the Washington Post. Meryl Streep plays Katharine Graham, publisher.
We associate Vietnam with the 1960s but this movie is set in the early 1970s. The crux of the story is how journalists struggled to get classified material into print to reveal the debacle of the Vietnam war. Why would government lie to us about the war? I guess the CW is that government people did not want to give the impression we were "losing," just for personal vanity reasons. The perception today is that we
did lose the war. Wolf Blitzer in his CNN objective reporting has said as much, directly. Brian Williams when he was the evening anchor at NBC News described the war as a "colossal mistake" in his objective reflective reporting. No bones are made about it today.
As a young child I was perplexed about Vietnam, failing to see the real purpose of it. We'd discuss it from our "World Events" posters in the elementary classrooms. That's how I learned the word "strive." There was a report about how the South Vietnam leader was "striving" to do something. I began to think the war would have no end. I came to think the same way about economic inflation. The times were so sobering, seeming to crowd out any potential for the simple joy of life and feeling optimistic. If today's kids were to step into a time machine and go back to then, they'd feel a major jolt of culture shock. They'd want to cry out in anguish over the "analog" world where they'd have to deal with the likes of pay phones. People could light up cigarettes almost anywhere. We see "the habit" in the movie.
Matthew Ryhs plays Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg studies the Vietnam conflict on the scene in 1966. It was in 1966 when my family had a friend in Brainerd, son of the sister of my mom's best high school friend, killed by friendly fire in Vietnam. We went to Brainerd for the funeral. Perhaps that experience left me permanently jaded, bitter and fixated on a particular conclusion about Vietnam. You know what that conclusion is. The movie shows Ellsberg becoming disillusioned after his meeting with Robert McNamara (played by Bruce Greenwood). McNamara privately feels skeptical about the war. Yet he gives a speech upon their plane landing that exudes optimism. Ellsberg seems flummoxed. Eventually he's the absolute key for the truth getting out. But what if he had not done that?
Newspapers at their apex
The movie sure gives us scenes of the print media at its peak, bundles of papers tossed onto the street with an air of drama as we appreciate the power of it all. We see newspaper employees at all levels, even the grunts in the printing facility where at one point they await dramatic word on whether to press the button to start the "press run." Today the process is so egalitarian. We're still waiting to see if that's really better.
It appears we were listening to the real Nixon tapes in this movie. The movie props up the Washington Post, naturally, but this is at the expense of the New York Times. That rap is not justified.
Journalism was my career. I probably should cheer as I watch the uninhibited heroic characters of "The Post" do their thing, while all the political and legal people of "The Beltway" apparently had no choice but to sit on their hands through it all. I am concerned about any critical juncture in U.S. history where everything depends on people (e.g. journalists) who are not per se a part of the political/legal process. Right now we appear to be depending on Robert Mueller. That is the way it should be!
I couldn't help but be reminded of those corny press guys in the movie "Airplane." The old-time newspaper people conjure up such images for parody. "OK boys, let's get some pictures." Remember that?
Investigative reporting here in Morris?
I would never have expected this: our Morris newspaper risking the ruffling of some feathers to probe into a local story of import. The story is about our medical center complex, SCMC. There has been a change of leadership at SCMC. The previous head guy, John Rau, has come back, remindful of Bud Grant coming back to coach the Minnesota Vikings, remember? Or, Father Alan Wielinski coming back to our Catholic church in Morris, because the previous guy had gotten in a spot of trouble.
Now it's our medical facility which is obviously of great importance to the whole broad Morris area. Oh, I've heard the same rumors you've heard, prompted by an apparent exodus of talented people from the staff of SCMC. They appear to be leaving in a disgruntled state. A friend quoted one of these people saying "I hated to go to work in the morning."
But for the newspaper to roll up its sleeves and get aggressive about reporting this, well let me say it's a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
All impressions right now are that SCMC has perhaps slumped because of a phenomenon familiar to us all: organizations getting too impersonal, losing the common sense touch with people - its staff. We see the bean counting mentality take over.
Our Morris newspaper has come under this influence because of being owned by the big Forum Communications of Fargo, thus the paper has been reduced in size substantially for cost reasons. And they assume there are enough suckers left around Morris who'll keep buying the paper just because it's an old habit. Ditto with advertisers who are considered "legacy advertisers." In other words they'll keep supporting things like "the beef page" and "the dairy page" even though no one gets anything out of it. Farming is corporate today and those people really don't want media around at all. But hey, let's hearken back to an earlier time, I guess.
The forces for change always push aside the past. Or do they? People are asking questions about our medical assets in Morris now. I wondered if SCMC had non-local ownership but upon checking, could find no evidence of this, although I'm sure any major medical operation has ties to non-local entities like Allina. So the local vs. non-local angle is probably not applicable here. I'm not sure what is applicable since SCMC's leadership is saying next to nothing. Make that nothing. In light of that, people can have license to speculate or to use a more earthy term, gossip.
SCMC's leadership has stonewalled the media as the media simply tries asking basic questions. Hey, who are we in Morris to want answers for how our health care is administered? It is very important that we have health care that is, if anything, better than average. Morris has limited attributes as a place to live. We are located about a 45-minute drive from recreational lakes country. We must accentuate the assets that we can cling to.
The Fergus Falls clinic/hospital has added on an elaborate, almost futuristic type of entry area that makes the place trend-setting. There is at least one volunteer at the entrance to immediately assist with anyone's needs who arrives. In Morris my experience has been that you need to go to the reception counter, where lines and waiting can happen, and get through to page a nurse or someone to come out.
The cafeteria? Well my goodness, at St. Cloud Hospital there is a spacious and wondrous dining facility with a wide variety of offerings. At Fergus Falls it's quite fine too. At SCMC, while the food might be fine, it's tiny. The whole SCMC complex really seems just utilitarian. And there's that awful entrance on the south where you go uphill and turn sharply. Finding an entrance has seemed to be an issue. When all else fails, go to the south side.
I have always been favorably impressed by John Rau who is in the Bud Grant role. He immediately strikes me as sincere and caring even if he answers to a board, and he laughs easy which is always a terrific sign! Whatever the problems are, they should not have been allowed to get this far. The community needs to rise up and ensure that SCMC's leadership is accountable.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com