In Episode 270, learn how a moment of courage by Katharine Graham shaped history and provided a lesson in principled leadership.

Mark recounts the powerful story of Katharine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, and the defining moment in 1971 when she authorised publication of the Pentagon Papers in defiance of the US government.
Despite immense personal and professional risk, Graham chose truth over safety, guided by the principled words of her father. Her story is a reminder that character is often revealed in moments of pressure.
Shawn and Mark explore how this story offers business relevance in demonstrating principled decision-making under pressure and the importance of leadership emerging when it’s needed most.
This episode is a great listen for leaders navigating difficult decisions, and for anyone interested in how values and character drive real influence.
Looking for a story for an upcoming presentation or event? Let’s find you a story: https://www.anecdote.com/lets-find-you-a-story/
For your story bank
Tags: Leadership, Ethics, Decision-making, Journalism, Storytelling, Values in action
This story starts at 1:54
Katharine Graham became the owner of The Washington Post in 1963 following the death of her husband, Phil Graham. The paper had originally been purchased by her father in 1933. When he was appointed as the first head of the World Bank in 1946, he handed over ownership, but in a sign of the times, gave 70% to his son-in-law Phil, and only 30% to his daughter, Katharine. When Phil died, she stepped into the leadership role, despite never having held a formal executive position.
Fast forward to June 1971. The New York Times had begun publishing the Pentagon Papers — a 7,000-page classified report exposing that the US government had been misleading the public for decades about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration swiftly obtained a federal injunction to stop them publishing further.
The Washington Post had also obtained a copy of the papers but hadn’t published anything yet. There was no injunction against them, but the stakes were extraordinarily high. The editorial team were adamant: they had to publish. Failing to do so, they argued, would be a blow to freedom of the press. Meanwhile, the legal team warned that publishing could lead to criminal charges under the Espionage Act — imprisonment for Graham and the editors, and the potential loss of the company.
To make matters even more complicated, just two days earlier, The Washington Post had gone public. They needed the IPO funds to modernise and grow the business. Losing the paper now could be catastrophic.
With time running out and tensions high, Graham received a phone call: a conference line with both the editors and the lawyers, each pushing for opposite decisions. And there, in the middle of a dinner party she was hosting at her home, she had to make the call.
What rang in her ears was her father’s old advice: “The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained.”
Terrified, she gulped and simply said, “Go ahead.” Then hung up the phone and returned to small talk with her guests.
The next morning, The Washington Post published. Within hours, they were sued. But their decision gave courage to other papers, who joined in republishing. Within weeks, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government had acted illegally in restraining the press.