
The most important claim in the New York Times‘ revisionist history of the Pentagon Papers (1/7/21) is demonstrably false.
The day New York Times journalist Neil Sheehan died, the Times ran a story (1/7/21) with the headline, “Now It Can Be Told: How Neil Sheehan Got the Pentagon Papers.” It purports to be the true story of how the paper obtained the Defense Department’s classified history of the Vietnam War that had been secretly photocopied by former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Here’s what Sheehan told reporter Janny Scott in 2015, on the condition that it could not be published until after Sheehan’s death:
Contrary to what is generally believed, Mr. Ellsberg never “gave” the papers to the Times, Mr. Sheehan emphatically said. Mr. Ellsberg told Mr. Sheehan that he could read them but not make copies. So Mr. Sheehan smuggled the papers out of the apartment in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Mr. Ellsberg had stashed them; then he copied them illicitly, just as Mr. Ellsberg had done, and took them to the Times.
In Sheehan’s telling, Ellsberg is a fearful neurotic, so afraid of going to prison that he makes foolish mistakes that could lead to getting caught—and so Sheehan had to lie to his source and make his own copy, because he was determined that, as he put it, “this material is never again going in a government safe.”
When the papers are published and Ellsberg discovers the ruse, Sheehan has Ellsberg say, “So you stole it, like I did.” To which Sheehan supposedly replied:
No, Dan, I didn’t steal it…. And neither did you. Those papers are the property of the people of the United States. They paid for them with their national treasure and the blood of their sons, and they have a right to it.
As you can probably tell from that dialogue, Sheehan made himself very much the hero of the story, which is perhaps why he wanted it published only after he was no longer around to be contradicted. There was nothing stopping Scott, though, from calling Ellsberg, who is still quite alive, and asking him for his reaction to Sheehan’s account. She did not do so, but Daniel’s son Robert Ellsberg provided that missing piece in a response to the story on Twitter (1/10/21).
Robert points out that his father’s actions were not those of someone who feared prison; when he was arraigned, he asked reporters, “Would not you go to prison to help end this war?” Rather, Daniel Ellsberg was afraid that he wouldn’t be able to get out the secrets he was risking prison to expose.

The New York Times online story (1/7/21) on how the Pentagon Papers were published has a photograph of Times managing editor A.M. Rosenthal and other staffers reading the published document in the paper, and another photo (above) of Rosenthal congratulating Neil Sheehan and other staffers—but no image of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who was actually responsible for bringing the Pentagon Papers to the public.
Daniel has explained—notably in his 2002 memoir Secrets—that he would have given a copy of the Pentagon Papers to Sheehan immediately if only Sheehan had told him that the Times was seriously interested in publishing them. They were, but for reasons that aren’t very clear in Sheehan’s account, the reporter was unwilling to tell Ellsberg that. (“He feared that Mr. Ellsberg’s reaction might inadvertently tip the government off,” is the explanation proffered.) As Robert notes, this meant that Daniel had to keep looking for another publisher—increasing and not decreasing the chances that the government might learn about and seize the copied papers.
What Daniel Ellsberg remembers telling Sheehan when he found out about the Times‘ secret copy is, “You did what I did”—not, “So you stole it, like I did.” As Robert writes, “My father never considered that he had stolen anything”—and didn’t need a reminder from Sheehan that the papers belonged to the American people.
Of course, it’s impossible to say which of two versions of a conversation that occurred between two people is correct—even if one version has the strong whiff of something that one person wishes they had said. But there is an important part of the Times story that is definitely false, and requires correction—because it’s contradicted later in the same story.
That’s when the story reads, “Contrary to what is generally believed, Mr. Ellsberg never ‘gave’ the papers to the Times.” In fact, Ellsberg did give the papers to Sheehan, as the story gets around to revealing 38 paragraphs later:
So he told Mr. Ellsberg that he now needed the documents, not just his notes…. This time, when Mr. Sheehan asked, Mr. Ellsberg consented…. He arranged for Mr. Sheehan to pick up a complete copy of the historical study stowed in an Ellsberg family apartment in Manhattan.
So the big revisionist revelation in the New York Times article turns out to be false. Rather, if you read to the end of this 2,800-word piece, you find that “what is generally believed”—is actually true.
ACTION ALERT:
Please tell the New York Times to set the historical record straight by correcting its story to note that Daniel Ellsberg did in fact give the Pentagon Papers to the Times.
CONTACT:
Letters: letters@nytimes.com
Readers Center: Feedback
Twitter: @NYTimes
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
Featured image: Daniel Ellsberg






This dead man tells a two faced tale, with the help of living liars
As a sort of amusing sidenote, the government originally accused Ellsberg of stealing the documents only to have it noted that he couldn’t have because the documents never left the government’s possession: Ellsberg took the copies he made, not the originals. So the government changed it to accusing him of the theft of “the arrangement of the words on the page.” Which didn’t work, either.
NYTimes has now doubled down on the original story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/insider/neil-sheehan-pentagon-papers.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Reader%20Center
Without acknowledging any of the problems or self-contradictions noted here.
This article seems… nitpicky at best. Beyond a handful of comments that may have been misremembered (and/or, as the author suggests, filtered through Sheehan’s slightly self-inflating lens), the vast majority of the story remains solid. Ellsberg *did* technically give (somewhat indirect) permission for Sheehan to take the documents, but that was almost a moot point by then because the Times was, unbeknownst to Ellsberg, barreling full steam toward a publishing deadline with the material Sheehan had secretly copied earlier as he tried to stall Ellsberg with lies. The permission Ellsberg eventually gave was, for all intents and purposes, at that point, a superfluous gesture that was primarily symbolic. Ellsberg explicitly tells Sheehan *not* to make copies upon giving him access, and by the time he relented, the story was already in print and headed for public consumption.
In sum, not a very persuasive assertion of New York Times revisionism–more of a contrarian vibe to be honest.
Let’s face it, to this day Ellsberg has smashingly succeeded in marketing plausible deniability on behalf of the Agency in which he made his name.
You know, this article’s charge is small change. What FAIR needs to look at is that the PP themselves were cooked up to shift blame for the Vietnam War from the CIA (which instigated it and used as cover for running drugs from the Golden Triangle) to the military and JFK. It was a shameful exercise but it worked. See Ronald Thomas West’s post 8/5/16 (https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/08/05/pentagon-papers-cia-and-the-lies-of-daniel-ellsberg/) “Pentagon Papers, CIA and the Lies of Daniel Ellsberg”, in which we read:
“Douglas Valentine, who for years investigated the CIA’s ‘Phoenix Program’ in Vietnam, and more, interviewing Indochina clandestine operations veterans who were on location, in that era, in 2003 penned an article; ‘Will The Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up?’” (http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/03/08/will-the-real-daniel-ellsberg-please-stand-up/)
…
“Valentine’s research matches the entirely independent (and highly suppressed) material in the exposé of a former Pentagon liaison to the CIA, ‘The Secret Team‘, by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. The reasons given for the Pentagon Papers release, by both Valentine and Prouty, is to shift any scrutiny and public attention away from the CIA and its activities in Vietnam; inclusive of narcotics trafficking & dirty war assassinations (Valentine’s focus) and how clandestine CIA policies were implemented to the detriment of the USA national interest (Prouty’s focus.)”
Ellsberg was the liasion for the smuggling operation in SE Asia yet necver mentions it in his memoir “Secrets”.
Why focus on a little controversy like this when the big lie has continued to be largely ignored until this day?
My doubts about this story are different. 1. Ellsberg was a former US Marine officer and career CIA officer. 2. Ellsberg was never imprisoned or even convicted and receives a CIA retirement check to this day, despite hard evidence of guilt.
According to Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who worked with the CIA in the Pentagon, these papers were genuine but only selective parts were released by the CIA via Ellsberg. This was to shift blame from the obvious Vietnam debacle from the CIA to the Pentagon and to embarrass Nixon, who they planned to oust.
Why doesn’t FAIR make it possible for me to e-mail this article to a friend…….especially as you are requesting action?