(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Judy Woodruff: Finally tonight- President Trump's approach to and battles with many in the news media have been a consistent feature of the first year of his presidency. Similar tensions resonate in a new movie about how a former president battled the press. That fight was over the publication of the Pentagon Papers, secret documents about the war in Vietnam, a milestone case for press freedom and the First Amendment. It all started with The New York Times, but the fight was soon joined by The Washington Post. Jeffrey Brown has a look behind the movie and the events of that era.
Jeffrey Brown: June 1971.
Meryl Streep: Do you have the papers?
Tom Hanks: Not yet.
Jeffrey Brown: But he soon would. The papers were the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War created by the Defense Department. In the film "The Post," Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, played by Tom Hanks, and publisher Katharine Graham, Meryl Streep, must obtain the papers and then decide whether to defy a court order and publish them. The all-star project, directed by Steven Spielberg, takes on big and consequential history, and issues of press freedom and national security that resonate to today. But Liz Hannah, the screenwriter, later joined by Josh Singer, says her focus was on a smaller individual story, about Katharine Graham, the high society woman thrust into leadership of her family-owned paper, finding her way in a male-dominated world.
Liz Hannah: This was the first Fortune 500 CEO who is a woman, and she had been told her whole life that she wasn't good enough. And then she was put in this position where she had to make this choice and she had to find her voice. And there is something very universal about that. There's something about that, to me, that is very relatable. I have spent many times in a room where I'm the only woman or I'm the odd man out. And that's the story I think that we need now, is the story of people finding their voices.
Jeffrey Brown: The real Katharine Graham told her own story, including taking over the paper after her husband's suicide, in a memoir that would win the Pulitzer Prize in 1998, and spoke of it in interview on the NewsHour.
Katharine Graham: I didn't really transform myself. Working transformed me, and I went to work not thinking that my role would develop as it did. I went to work because I found that I owned the controlling shares of the company, and I thought, well, if this is so, I need to learn what it is that's at stake here, and what the issues are, because maybe someday I will have to make some sort of decision that I have to be intelligent about. So I had better know.
Jeffrey Brown: The film is set as The Washington Post Company is about to go public, so the stakes for Graham were especially high. We see the cozy relationships she had with key political figures, including Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, played by Bruce Greenwood, the very person who'd commissioned the Pentagon Papers, and then pushed to have them kept from public view.
Bruce Greenwood: If you publish, you will get the very worst of them, the Colsons and the Ehrlichmans. And he will crush you.
Meryl Streep: I know. He's just awful. But I…
Bruce Greenwood: He's a — Nixon is a son of a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). He hates you. He hates Ben. He's wanted to ruin the paper for years. And you will not get a second chance, Kay. The Richard Nixon I know will muster the full power of the presidency, and if there's a way to destroy your paper, by God, he will find it.
Jeffrey Brown: The Pentagon Papers were originally leaked to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan by Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department analyst who came to believe the government was lying about the progress of the war. Ellsberg spoke in 2010 on the PBS program "POV."
Daniel Ellsberg: As the Pentagon Papers showed — and I have often said that I feel very regretful that I had not put out those documents when I could have in 1964 and '65 — I think, that a war really might have been avoided.
Jeffrey Brown: Times' reporters spent three months studying the papers. James Goodale, then lead counsel for The Times, told me there was a lot on the line.
James Goodale: The news people were very concerned that they had fake documents. They didn't know who Ellsberg was. And they didn't care who he was, because they wanted to make their own determination whether the documents they had were authentic. If they were not authentic, it would be very hard for The New York Times to recover from that blow.
Jeffrey Brown: On June 13, 1971, The Times began publishing stories, until the Nixon administration, claiming a violation of the Espionage Act, secured a court injunction against the paper, a first in American history. The movie version focuses on The Washington Post's efforts to play catchup, its success at getting hold of the papers, and then the decision to publish while The Times was silenced. In a landmark First Amendment decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the two newspapers. Tom Hanks told me recently how the story resonated for him, then and now.
Tom Hanks: The truth was so volatile and so — what is the word I'm looking for? Almost so — so toxic, at that time the present day, that no one wanted to talk about it. And Ben Bradlee and The Washington Post for — and Kay Graham, for about a week, not only altered the state of their newspaper empire, but they also altered the state of the First Amendment and the history of the world. By what? By what? By printing the truth. Dear lord, if that's a dangerous thing to do, we're in a bad place.
Jeffrey Brown: In fact, in the midst of our current period of media and White House contention, director Steven Spielberg decided to rush the film into production. He spoke at a recent forum.
Steven Spielberg: There were a lot of fires being lit, and, of course, the evening news was lighting most of the fires. But we really felt that we could get into the national conversation and make this movie as quickly as possible, and make it as well as we possibly could.
Jeffrey Brown: The film has received mostly glowing reviews, and, though losing out at the recent Golden Globes, is expected to compete for Oscar and other awards. One criticism, its focus on The Post, when the rival New York Times deserves the credit. Former Times counsel James Goodale calls it a good film, bad history.
James Goodale: Although a producer has artistic license, I think it should be limited in a situation such as this, so the public comes away with an understanding of what the true facts are in this case. And I think that, if you're doing a movie now, when Trump is picking on the press for fake news, you want to be authentic. You don't want to be in any way fake.
Jeffrey Brown: The film's co-writer, Liz Hannah, though, believes it gives The Times its due.
Liz Hannah: The work that Neil Sheehan did with Dan Ellsberg and with his team at The Times was remarkable, and we wouldn't have the Pentagon Papers if it weren't for them. And that is a story in and of itself. But the story that I wanted to tell was the story of Kay Graham, and then the story of how Kay Graham and Ben Bradlee became the superhero team that we know them as. And this was really the beginning of this team. This is the team that led to Watergate.
Jeffrey Brown: Indeed, the Pentagon Papers story was followed just one year later by the Watergate break-in that would lead to the downfall of President Nixon, not to mention another famous film about The Washington Post. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Jeffrey Brown in Washington.
重点解析
1.stand up to 顶住
Is this building going to stand up to the strongest gales?
这座楼能经得住最强劲的大风吗？
2.thrust into 投身到/被推到
Tony has now been thrust into the limelight, with a high-profile job.
托尼现在一下子成了众人关注的中心，因为他有一份经常出镜、见报的工作。
3.on the line冒险
He wouldn't put his career on the line to help a friend.
他不会为了帮助朋友而让自己的事业受到威胁。
4.deserve the credit 归功于
And I would argue that spending any time at all trying to figure out who invented that and who deserves the credit is very destructive to teams.
所以我说，如果花费时间，找出究竟是谁发明了这种酒，应该归功于谁，这对于一个团队的损害很大。
参考译文
朱迪·伍德瑞夫：今晚最后，特朗普总统在新闻媒体上的论战在其任期的第一年里一直持续。最近有一部新电影描述了类似的一个紧张局势，引起了人们的共鸣。这部电影讲述了美国一位前总统与新闻界战斗的故事。这场战斗涉及五角大楼文件的公开、涉及越南战争的秘密文件，也涉及宪法第一修正案，而后者的胜利也恰是新闻自由的一个里程碑。这一切由纽约时报率先发起，不久华盛顿邮报也加入了这场（没有硝烟的）战斗。杰里佛·布朗（邀您一起）探寻这部电影及那个时代背后的故事。
杰里佛·布朗：1971年6月。
梅丽尔•斯特里普：那些文件在你手里么？
汤姆·汉克斯：暂时没有。
杰里佛·布朗：但他很快会拿到。这些文件是五角大楼文件，由国防部创立，内容涉及越南战争的那段秘史。在电影“华盛顿邮报”中，华盛顿邮报编辑本·博莱德利（汤姆·汉克斯饰演）和出版商凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆（梅丽尔·斯特里普饰演），必须拿到机密文件，并且决定是否要违抗法庭命令，将其公之于众。本影片由史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格导演，以全明星阵容，重现了那段意义重大且又影响深远的历史，探讨了新闻自由以及国家安全，呼应了当今时代。但后来，编剧丽兹·汉娜（后来乔什·辛格也加入进来）说她着重想要描绘的是凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆的微观个人经历。故事讲述了一位上流社会女子，一夜间成了家族报行的领头人，在一个男性主导的世界里，为自己觅得出路。
丽兹·汉娜：这是第一位成为世界500强企业CEO的女人。曾有人告诉她，她一辈子都不会成功。然后，她被架到了这个位置上，她不得不作出选择，她必须找到她自己的声音。这种事很普遍。其中有些事，对我来说，熟悉得很。很多次，我呆在一个房间里，我是唯一的女人，或者说我是个怪人。这就是我认为我们现在需要的故事，关于女人为自己博的一席之地（听到自己声音）的故事。
杰里佛·布朗：凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆撰写的回忆录，此书可以获得1998年普利策奖，其中凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆本人向我们讲述了包括丈夫自杀后接管报社在内的故事，并接受了NewsHour的采访。
凯瑟琳·格雷厄姆：我并没有真正改变自己。工作改变了我，我去工作，但并没想着我的（工作）角色会像现在一样发展。我去上班是因为我发现我拥有公司的控股权，我想，如果是这样的话，我需要知道这里面有什么风险，有什么问题，因为也许有一天我不得不做出一些我明智的决断。所以我最好对这一切了如指掌。
杰里佛·布朗：这部电影以即将上市的华盛顿邮报公司为背景，格雷厄姆所持的股份很高。我们看到她与一些重要政治人物的关系十分融洽，这其中就包括国防部长罗伯特·麦克纳马拉（由布鲁斯·格林伍德饰演），他正是五角大楼文件的负责人，他将这些卷宗尘封，让它们远离公众视线。
布鲁斯·格林伍德：如果你将它们公之于众，科尔森和埃利希曼中最坏的那个，他会把你撕成碎片。
梅丽尔·斯特里普：我知道。他很可怕。但我...
布鲁斯·格林伍德：他是尼克松的儿子（脏话删除）。他恨你。他恨本。他多年来一直想毁掉那份文件。你不会有第二次机会了，凯。我所了解的理查德·尼克松将集结作为总统的一切力量，他一定会找到销毁你文件的办法。
杰里佛·布朗：最初，前国防部分析师丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格将五角大楼文件泄露给了纽约时报记者尼尔·希汗。丹尼尔逐渐相信，政府隐瞒了战争的进展情况。2010年，埃尔斯伯格做客PBS“观点”节目。
丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格：正如五角大楼文件所记录的那样，我经常说，我感到非常后悔，1964或1965年，我能拿出这些文件时，没有拿出，我认为一场战争本可避免。
杰里佛·布朗：纽约时报记者花了三个月时间研究这些文件。詹姆斯·古德尔是纽约时报时任首席律师，告诉我这其中有很大风险。
詹姆斯·古德尔：新闻从业者们对于虚假证件往往都非常提防。他们不知道埃尔斯伯格是何许人也。他们也不在乎，因为他们想自己辨别证件的真伪。如果是假的，那么纽约时报将很难从那次打击中恢复。
杰里佛·布朗：1971年6月13日，《纽约时报》开始刊登那些故事，直到尼克松政府声称这一行为违反了间谍法。于是纽约时报获得法庭禁令，这在美国历史上还是第一次。本部电影侧重于描绘当纽约时报一蹶不振时，华盛顿邮报穷心竭力拿到文件，并决定将其出版（的这一历史时刻）。在一项具有里程碑意义的第一修正案决议中，最高法院裁定，支持这两家报社。汤姆·汉克斯最近告诉我，这个故事此时彼刻如何与他产生了共鸣。
汤姆·汉克斯：真相如此反复无常，用什么词好呢，如此刺痛人心，以至此时彼刻都无人愿意谈及。本·布莱德利、华盛顿邮报和凯·葛莱汉姆，用了大约一个星期，不仅彻底改变了自己在报业帝国中的地位，也改变了第一修正案的地位，书写了世界史。这些靠的是什么？靠的是什么？通过出版真相。亲爱的主，如果此事凶险，那说明我们的世界不够美好。
杰里弗·布朗：事实上，就在媒体还在与白宫争论不休之时，导演史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格决定推出这部影片。他在最近的一次论坛上发表了讲话。
史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格：这部影片点燃了人们心中的火种，当然，晚间新闻起了很大作用。但我们真的觉得我们可以参与到全国性的讨论中来，尽快制作完成这部电影。
杰里弗·布朗：这部影片获得了很多热情洋溢的评论，尽管最近在金球奖争夺中失利，但仍有希望角逐奥斯卡及其他奖项。当有人将这一切应归功于竞争对手纽约时报时，一个批评的声音出来了。时报前律师詹姆斯·古德尔称这是一部好片子，却是一段烂历史。
詹姆斯·古德尔：虽然影片制作可以讲求艺术感，但我认为还是应该加以限制，比如这样，这样公众就会了解整个事情的真实情况。我想，如果你现在拍一部电影，展现特朗普在挑弄假新闻，你一定想真实表达，你肯定不想弄虚作假。
杰里弗·布朗：本部影片的合著者丽兹·汉娜认为，这部电影给了时代应有的启示。
丽兹·汉娜：尼尔·希汗与丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格及他的团队在本部电影中表现优异，如果没有他们，我们根本拿不到五角大楼文件。这就是这个故事本身。但我想讲的故事是凯·葛莱汉姆，讲述凯·葛莱汉姆和本·博莱德利结成超级英雄团队，正如我们所知道的那样。这真是这个团队的开山之作，接下来他们导演了水门事件。
杰里弗·布朗：的确，仅一年后，就发生了水门事件，最终导致尼克松总统倒台，更不用说还有一部关于华盛顿邮报的著名电影了。PBS NewsHour，杰里弗·布朗，华盛顿报道。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
