One consistent blog meme is that voices in the media deny or underrate a problem and then when it finally comes out long after the fact they argue that "everyone knew that."* This is comparable to us hearing from the Bush Administration that "no one could know" various things that many very well did know, at times even those in the very executive department. This came to mind when reading of all things two movie reviews for just released documentaries.
One problem the filmmakers have, in fact, is that the narrative of Mr. Ellsberg’s disillusionment and of the subsequent First Amendment battle after he leaked the papers is so familiar, and its lessons regarding government malfeasance so accepted, that it has become an official story in its own right.
First is a documentary concerning Daniel Ellsberg, one promoted today in a Democracy Now! segment. The narrative might be so familiar to some readers of the NYT, but just how much so to the general public? I doubt many my age know much about Vietnam itself, putting aside his story. If the leak to tell the truth about Vietnam is "so accepted," why did the NYT itself wait a year (past an election) to release an awarding winning story on illegal eavesdropping? Sen. Gravel put the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. For this, in a less well known case as compared to the Pentagon Papers itself, the Supreme Court noted:
[H]is insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible.
But, we repeatedly were told that members of the "Gang of 8" or whatever, could not tell other members about possible illegal treatment of detainees. I read a decent amount about the treatment of detainees, including on some blogs, but never saw any discussion why this is so. What lesson was so accepted? Yet again, criticism of the government was disfavored in time of war and strong action against the President was left to (see footnote) "left wing kooks." Until those dirty f-ing hippies, per Atrios, turned out to be right. Then it's, well yeah, we knew that.
“Fatal Promises,” a documentary about human trafficking, seems to start from the premise that no one has ever heard of this vexing international problem before. So it tries to cover every base: sex slavery, forced manual labor, political foot-dragging, celebrity activism, frustration among nongovernmental agencies dealing with the issue.
As a result it lacks focus and adds little to the awareness of the subject that even a casual follower of the news has already acquired.
Again, and I say this as someone who reads the news and informs myself about policy more than some others, what? I reckon that most people probably are somewhat aware, in a vague sense, about what those two Asian reporters were investigating when North Korea arrested them. That is, illegal human trafficking. But, I doubt they know much about it, or the various basics of the issues. So, it is totally appropriate to provide a thumbnail sketch of such issues. The reviewer probably also thinks Brian Lamb is silly for not assuming people know even the more basic aspects of the materials covered by those he interviews on C-SPAN.
Current events suggests overestimating viewer intelligence is not always the best path to take. It also is not insulting to realize that many do not know what someone more focused on the topic (yes, a writer at the NYT is likely to be aware of NYT v. U.S., one of the cases involved in the documentary).
---
* Somewhat off topic, this sort of thing really drives us crazy too. The person, who on average is fairly sensible, brings up the usual drivel about "left-wing ideologues" with their darn "kooky" ideas. See, they don't want to "compromise," and demand the public option. As I told this uninformed promoter of right wing talking points, the public option is a compromise.