WOULD THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST PUBLISH THE PENTAGON PAPERS AND EXPOSE WATERGATE IN TODAY'S MEDIA CLIMATE?
Imagine this: It’s 2025. The New York Times and the Washington Post are handed two of the most explosive stories in American history. The Pentagon Papers—7,000 pages of classified government deception about the Vietnam War—and a trail of corruption leading straight to the Oval Office, a modern-day Watergate. The stakes? Unimaginably high. The risks? Career-ending lawsuits, social media mobs, and, of course, the wrath of Donald J. Trump.
But wait—this isn’t the 1970s anymore. The media landscape has changed. The Times and the Post aren’t just journalistic institutions; they’re also businesses. And in an era where billionaires own newspapers and public trust in journalism is at an all-time low, would these legendary outlets still have the guts to publish?
Let’s take a closer look at how the modern-day Times and Post might handle their greatest tests in the age of Jack Smith, Kamala Harris endorsements, and Bezos pulling cartoons.
The New York Times: Balancing Journalism and Billionaire Interests
The New York Times is no stranger to controversy, but today’s Times operates under a unique set of pressures. Take, for instance, the recent incident where publisher A.G. Sulzberger reportedly pulled an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party’s best bet for 2024. The piece was allegedly spiked after concerns arose that it might alienate centrist readers or reflect poorly on the paper’s supposed neutrality.
Now, imagine the Pentagon Papers landing on Sulzberger’s desk in this climate. Would he greenlight the publication of 7,000 pages of classified government documents? Or would he worry about alienating subscribers, angering advertisers, or triggering a Twitter firestorm?
In 1971, the Times’ decision to publish the Pentagon Papers was made by a newsroom that still held editorial independence as sacred. But today, the lines between editorial and business interests are blurrier. The Times has faced criticism for catering to its predominantly liberal audience, sometimes at the expense of journalistic risk-taking. Would the fear of losing subscribers—or worse, being labeled “too partisan”—deter the paper from publishing?
And let’s not forget the legal risks. In 1971, the Times went all the way to the Supreme Court to defend its right to publish. But in 2025, with Trump’s legal team filing injunctions faster than you can say “fake news,” would the Times have the same resolve? Or would Sulzberger, wary of another PR disaster like the Kamala Harris endorsement debacle, decide it’s just not worth the fight?
The Washington Post: Democracy Dies in Darkness—But Cartoons Die in Bezos’ Inbox
Over at the Washington Post, the situation isn’t any simpler. The paper famously broke the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, thanks to the dogged reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. But today’s Post operates under the ownership of Jeff Bezos, a billionaire who’s shown he’s not above meddling when it suits him.
Take the recent controversy where Bezos reportedly pulled a political cartoon and an opinion piece critical of Amazon’s labor practices. The move sparked outrage among staffers, who saw it as a blatant violation of editorial independence. If Bezos is willing to kill a cartoon to protect his company’s image, what’s to stop him from interfering with a story that could alienate half of Amazon’s customer base?
Now imagine the Post uncovering a modern-day Watergate. Would Bezos allow the paper to publish a story that could destabilize the country—or worse, hurt Amazon’s bottom line? Or would he quietly suggest that the editors “take a different angle”?
And then there’s the issue of public trust. In the 1970s, the Post’s reporting helped bring down a president. Today, half the country would dismiss its reporting as partisan hackery, no matter how airtight the evidence. The Post could publish a video of Trump personally orchestrating a break-in, and his supporters would still cry “deep state conspiracy.” Would Bezos, ever the pragmatist, decide that the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze?
The Jack Smith Factor: A Modern-Day Pentagon Papers Meets Watergate
Enter Jack Smith, the special counsel whose alleged report claims Trump “engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort” as the head of multiple conspiracies. If the Times and the Post were handed this report today, would they publish it?
On one hand, both papers have shown they’re willing to take on Trump. The Times exposed his tax returns, and the Post broke the Access Hollywood tape. But those stories, while significant, didn’t carry the same existential risks as the Pentagon Papers or Watergate. Publishing Smith’s report would mean taking on not just Trump, but his entire media ecosystem—a machine designed to discredit, distract, and destroy.
And let’s not forget the government’s role. In the Nixon era, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the press. But today’s judiciary is far more conservative, and Trump’s allies would undoubtedly argue that publishing Smith’s report constitutes a national security threat. Would the Times and the Post be willing to risk it all for the sake of the truth?
The Verdict: Would They Publish?
So, would the New York Times and the Washington Post publish the Pentagon Papers and expose Watergate if those stories happened today? The answer is… complicated.
On paper, both institutions remain committed to their mission of holding power accountable. But in practice, they operate in a world where journalism is as much about survival as it is about truth. The Times might hesitate, fearing backlash from subscribers or another Kamala Harris-style endorsement controversy. The Post might falter, wary of angering Bezos or alienating Amazon customers.
And then there’s the public. In the 1970s, Americans trusted the press to tell them the truth. Today, half the country would dismiss the Pentagon Papers as a “deep state hoax” and Watergate as “fake news.” Even the most explosive story might struggle to break through the noise.
But here’s the thing: journalism has always been a leap of faith. In 1971, the Times published the Pentagon Papers knowing full well it might lose in court. In 1972, the Post pursued Watergate despite the risks. And if history is any guide, both papers would rise to the occasion again.
After all, democracy dies in darkness—but it also survives on the courage of those willing to shine a light. Let’s just hope the billionaires don’t dim the bulbs.
Supreme Court allows Trump's sentencing in New York hush money case The decision means a sentencing hearing scheduled for Friday can go ahead as planned. The president-elect had asked the high court to intervene. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-block-trump-sentencing-hush-money-case-rcna186837
