So stupid, you should delete your review of THE POST.
You're a f**king idiot.
I really don't know of a nice way to put this.
I'm reading your piece of garbage review raving over Spielberg's latest bad film.
And your opinions are stupid and facile but that's to be expected from a weak brain.
What's not to be expected?
That you're so ignorant about a topic you've chosen to write about.
Buy a f**king clue.
Better yet, buy a damn book and learn to read.
This is just utter nonsense:
“The Post” is about journalism and how The Post took up the flame of freedom of the press while others hesitated after the Nixon White House injunction against the Times was made, but it is also about how Kay transformed her manner of speech and her concept of who she was, the only woman publisher of a major newspaper, and one who could make vital, risky decision and demand respect.
I get it.
I've dealt with your kind before.
Usually at one of Kay's rags.
You think because you're writing about 'art' -- you're not, you don't know the first thing about art -- that you don't have to be accurate. So, for example, you create a scene on the TV show FRIENDS that never happened or you do a 'society' piece where you trash me while pretending to cover my charity work.
I get it, you don't know how to actually do anything. If you did, you'd have real jobs and contribute to society instead of writing the same piece of crap that can be found around every dead fish and at the bottom of every bird cage.
"Others hesitated"?
Who are these others?
So like the crappery passed off as journalism to leave them unnamed.
I know that ABC, CBS and NBC didn't hesitate, they said no (concerns about FCC licenses were cited).
Otherwise, THE BOSTON GLOBE had already decided to publish. Also publishing? THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.
What ahistorical world do you live in, Jana J, where you don't know these realities?
Or that that number of papers publishing THE PENTAGON PAPERS would be in the low double digits -- apparently like your own iq.
A united front was effective. And in the pre-online days, the delay from one paper to the next resulted from figuring out how to obtain the actual papers Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo had possession of. For THE WASHINGTON POST, it was rather easy. For THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, the route was longer (I.F. Stone sent the paper to Leonard Boudin who . . .)
In fact, here's how US NEWS & WORLD REPORTS summarized events in their July 5, 1971 article about what was happening:
The crisis took shape when "The New York Times" began publishing on June 13 material based on a massive Pentagon study of U.S. involvement in Indo-China. Litigation that led to the High Court began after the paper published three issues and had more articles ready to print.
The Department of Justice, contending that further disclosure of high-policy secrets would "cause irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States," obtained in U.S. district court in New York an order temporarily blocking publication.
When "The Washington Post" and "The Boston Globe" obtained and printed portions of the 47-volume Pentagon report, the Government moved against them, too, and halted the flow.
But, as court battles were fought, "The Chicago Sun-Times," "The Los Angeles Times" and others, including units of Knight Newspapers, Inc., in Miami, Philadelphia and Detroit, related more details of the study.
Notice how THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, whom the US government sued, didn't even get a mention in the above excerpt.
THE TIMES showed bravery. The other outlets backed it up.
Let's not pretend that Katharine was anything wonderful.
Make the film about her closeted personal life and that might make for entertainment.
But THE POST?
It's bad Cliff Notes heavily marked with a yellow highlighter.
The audience is never allowed to figure out anything for themselves -- or, heaven forbid, ponder what is onscreen.
Instead, Steven does another bad movie where he and John Williams rush to tell you what to feel and what to think.
It's amazing how much is not in the movie.
Even more amazing how many circle around each other.
Mika defends Mark Halperin on MSNBC last week, Sally Quinn (Ben Bradlee's widow) notes Mika's father exposes himself (then has to pull article -- but it happened and it and other things Mika's father did to women goes a long way towards explaining why Mika defends various harassers and assaulters while attacking their survivors). Mark?
He's the son of Morton Halperin.
Morton's phone was tapped because Nixon was convinced Morton was the one who was leaking THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
And that's before we get into the whole 'intel' connections that circle throughout THE POST but are never acknowledged.
It's something up on the screen -- it's just not reality or history.
No wonder an airhead like Jana J was impressed.
