Research Paper on The Ethical Issue of Publishing The Pentagon Papers

In this research paper, I will examine the ethical implications surrounding A.M. Rosenthal's decision to publish the Pentagon Papers in The New York Times. This pivotal moment in journalistic history raises important questions regarding the role of the press, the dissemination of sensitive information, and the balance between national security and the public's right to know. To explore this issue, I will utilize the Potter Box model, which offers a systematic approach to ethical decision-making by examining facts, values, principles, and loyalties.

Context and Background

To understand the ethical dimensions of Rosenthal's actions, we must first establish the context in which they occurred. The Pentagon Papers, formally titled "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force," were commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in June 1967. This classified study documented the United States' military and political involvement in Vietnam, revealing information that contradicted the government's public stance on the war.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst involved in the project, leaked the papers to the press after becoming disillusioned with the war. He initially attempted to share the information with Congress, but when those efforts failed, he approached journalists, including Neil Sheehan of The New York Times. The newspaper began publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, igniting a national debate on the ethics of government secrecy and the press's responsibility to inform the public.

Identifying the Facts

The first step in the Potter Box is to identify the relevant facts. The following list outlines key elements of the situation:

• A.M. Rosenthal was the editor-in-chief of The New York Times.
• The Pentagon Papers revealed significant discrepancies between the government's public statements and its actual military actions in Vietnam.
• The papers were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, who faced legal repercussions for his actions.
• The publication led to a Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. United States, which upheld the newspaper's right to publish.
• Rosenthal received warnings from legal advisors about the potential consequences of publishing classified information.

Values in Ethical Decision-Making

Next, we must consider the values that inform our ethical analysis. The following values are pertinent to the discussion:

Ethical Principles and Theories

In assessing Rosenthal's decision, we can apply Kantian ethics, which emphasizes duty and adherence to moral law. According to Kant, actions should be guided by principles that can be universally applied. The categorical imperative serves as a foundation for evaluating the morality of actions:

1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
2. Treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Evaluation of Rosenthal's Decision

Rosenthal's decision to publish the Pentagon Papers can be justified from an ethical standpoint for several reasons:

• The information contained in the Pentagon Papers was of immense public interest and revealed critical truths about the Vietnam War.
• By publishing the documents, Rosenthal acted in accordance with the value of transparency, providing the American public with the information necessary to form their own opinions about the war.
• The publication ultimately contributed to a shift in public perception and policy regarding the Vietnam War, potentially saving lives.

However, there are also arguments against the ethics of his decision:

• Publishing classified information posed risks to national security and the safety of military personnel.
• Rosenthal disregarded legal advice warning of potential consequences, which raises questions about his accountability to his staff and the newspaper's financial stability.

Stakeholder Perspectives

To further evaluate the ethical implications of Rosenthal's decision, we must consider the perspectives of key stakeholders:

• New York Times Employees: They faced job insecurity due to the potential legal ramifications of the publication, highlighting the ethical dilemma of risking livelihoods for the sake of transparency.
• Military Families: Many families had loved ones serving in Vietnam. The publication of the papers could have relieved some concerns about the government's honesty, making it ethical from their perspective.
• Journalists: By prioritizing the truth, Rosenthal upheld the ethical standards of journalism, reinforcing the press's role as a watchdog in a democracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after thoroughly analyzing A.M. Rosenthal's decision to publish the Pentagon Papers through the Potter Box framework, I maintain that his actions were ethical. While compelling arguments exist on both sides of the debate, the values of transparency, accountability, and public welfare ultimately support the justification for publication. Rosenthal's decision aligns with Kantian ethical principles, emphasizing duty and the importance of providing truthful information to the public. The implications of his actions, while complex, underscore the critical role of the press in safeguarding democracy and informing citizens.

References

1. Ellsberg, Daniel. "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers." Penguin Press, 2002.

2. Rudenstine, David. "The Pentagon Papers: A Study in the Ethics of Journalism." Cardozo School of Law, 2003.

3. Whitson, Ryan P. "Reading Your Own Front Page: How Kant Can Save Journalism in America." Journalism Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 2017, pp. 45-67.

4. Plaisance, Patrick Lee. "Transparency: An Assessment of the Kantian Roots of a Key Element in Media Ethics Practice." Journalism Studies, vol. 10, no. 5, 2009, pp. 646-659.