Reflective Midterm: All the Presidents Men
Because of their hard work, persistence and tenacity, two young Washington Post reporters were able to tackle governmental corruption at the highest level of office with a pen and a landline phone, setting an important precedent in the relationship between the Government and the Press.
These reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, exemplified the skills we have learned in class and through our book, the Investigative Reporters Handbook over the past few months through their investigation of the Watergate Scandal.
The “Paul Williams way” of reporting introduces investigative journalists to 11 basic steps to choose a topic, assess the potential of the topic to make a good investigative story, and follow through to complete the piece successfully. The 11 steps include conception, feasibility study, go/no-go decision, base building, planning, original research, re-evaluation, filling the gaps, final evaluation, and the process of writing and airing or publishing the story, depending on the medium the journalist uses to communicate the information they find.
The movie “All the President’s Men” was an extremely interesting depiction of this tedious process, and the tenacity that goes into completing it successfully. Woodward and Bernstein noticed a hint of something that could turn into a good story, and ran with it. They followed the information, namely money in their situation further and further down the rabbit hole until they reached the center.
Specifically, as we have learned to do throughout this course, Woodward and Bernstein used both primary and secondary sources to uncover information in the Watergate case. They relied on a lot of information about money — who was receiving a check from whom, etc. One essential revelation of this sort was when they realized that one of the Watergate offenders, James McCord They relied on this information to work inward on the concentric circle towards more primary, human sources. One source they relied on heavily was Mark Felt, referred to as Deep Throat, an FBI whistleblower whose identity was not uncovered until 2005
The 1976 political drama starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, respectively, brings the Watergate scandal — one of the biggest feats in the history of investigative journalism — back to life.
In the film, Redford and Hoffman play the two Washington Post reporters responsible for uncovering the Nixon administration’s involvement in the break-in at the Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate complex in Washington D.C.
President Richard Nixon at the time denied any involvement of his administration in the incident, but the reporting around the event would go on to prove otherwise.
A theme that struck me from the movie was the contrast of all of the scenes set in the newsroom/office location and how mundane some of them felt with the actual power they held — the writing and investigation these two men were doing had the power to impeach a president and wreck an administration.
As is often stated, the press has the power to be the judge jury and executioner of a public figure’s reputation. Investigative journalists and the press in general hold an immense amount of power to maintain or destroy a reputation in a moments time, so the job must be done responsibly. In a court of law, even if a judge dismisses testimony as hearsay, the information has already tainted the jury’s minds and the slate cannot be completely wiped clean. Likewise, even if information is recanted or even taken to court in a defamation case, the damage has already been done.
The trust and functionality in a relationship between a writer and an editor is vital to producing good work. The two roles are dependent on each other — the editor must trust the writer’s integrity and ability to produce quality content in order to assign them integral stories that can build the writers portfolio. In the Woodward-Bernstein-Watergate situation, the editor trusted them to some capacity with a story that large because he knew their abilities as journalists and had faith in their investigative integrity.
A theme that struck me from the movie was the contrast of all of the scenes set in the newsroom/office location and how mundane some of them felt with the actual power they held — the writing and investigation these two men were doing had the power to impeach a president and wreck an administration.
As is often stated, the press has the power to be the judge jury and executioner of a public figure’s reputation. Investigative journalists and the press in general hold an immense amount of power to maintain or destroy a reputation in a moments time, so the job must be done responsibly. In a court of law, even if a judge dismisses testimony as hearsay, the information has already tainted the jury’s minds and the slate cannot be completely wiped clean. Likewise, even if information is recanted or even taken to court in a defamation case, the damage has already been done.
The Watergate saga was pivotal in setting the precedent that the press is able to hold the government accountable even in the highest levels of office. I would love to sit down with Woodward and Bernstein and ask them at what exact moment the idea crossed their mind that their work would reach the magnitude that it did — or in other words what went through their minds when they realized that they were bringing down a president. (914 Words)
On my honor, I have watched “All the President’s Men” in its entirety.