You have seen the movie. Now respond to it from the point of view of a journalist. I would like to see a conversation here that leaps off from the movie itself into the issues of journalism as you know and understand them.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Blue Pencil 
After watching All the President’s Men, I was surprised and shocked at a few things I saw.
First, I couldn’t believe how many people hung up on the reporters. I realize that in the course of a typical story with as great proportions as those people would be unwilling to talk, but I couldn’t believe how many people just hung up without being courteous.
Second, I felt that the amount of confirmation the reporters needed for each thing they wrote was both incredible and terrific. It ensured thorough reporting, and was perhaps the reason the story took off and had the effect that it did. They were required to have three people verify each major fact they wrote, and the story was often held by Bradlee without such verification.
This seems something that would not happen today, but would perhaps be the best thing that could happen in the world of journalism if it was to happen. It would ensure that stories are always accurate, precise and correct. In a day when there have been so many discredited reporters and stories, continued verification and devil’s advocate editors would ensure continued credibility and perhaps a renewed trust in the media.
If Woodward and Bernstein could change the course of history and politics following this method of verification, who is to say future reporters can’t do the same from the very beginning?
This is a classic example of how far hard work can take you. Woodward and Bernstein proved that sometimes as a journalist you are going to get doors slammed in your face, hung up on, and treated like the scum of the earth. And that’s OK. They searched for the truth, and they still had their integrity even though they were reporting on something that was seen as taboo and wasn’t being handled hardly at all by other major newspapers.
I also liked the fact that sometimes you think you have the story, but if you dig a little deeper or look at it in a different light, there might be something more. Woodward and Bernstein thought they had the story in the beginning, but when they started interviewing more people and asking more questions, they realized there was something else going on.
Some times the best stories take the most time. It’s good to be persistent.
Another angle I really liked was the editor to reporter dynamic. Bradlee was awesome. He wasn’t willing to run the story unless there was more proof, but he was also willing to give two not-so-great reporters a chance to really shine. Bradlee knew that the Watergate scandal was a big issue and he didn’t want to run a story that wasn’t up to par. He took it very seriously and wanted substantial evidence for what was going to be run in his paper. I think that’s an awesome way of working together. An editor is supposed to act as a guide and Bradlee was more than that.
I had never watched “All the President’s Men” the entire way through until Wednesday’s class, and I’m really glad I got the opportunity to watch it. Its message is timeless for any reporter who wants to really use their craft to make an impact. The uncovering of a massive political scandal involving the President of the United States is just about as big as it can get. As the film shows, Woodward and Bernstein were the epitome of the tenacious, hard-nosed reporters willing to do whatever it took to get the facts and, most importantly, get them right, which meant double, triple, and even quadruple-checking their information. The sources involved in the Watergate scandal were probably some of journalism’s hardest people to interview, and I enjoyed watching how an odd couple team of reporters like Woodward and Bernstein were able to use their tenacity and ability to talk and relate to people so that they could uncover the truth. I loved watching Bernstein barge into the clerk of court’s office in Miami after clearly being avoided the whole afternoon. As an investigative reporter, sometimes you have to risk being rude to get your story.
I also loved how Jason Robards played editor Ben Bradlee. He portrayed the dynamic with Woodward and Bernstein perfectly. In the beginning, he was healthily skeptical and demanding, but once he realized Woodward and Bernstein were on to something, he put the newspaper’s entire reputation and future on the line because he had that much trust in what they were doing. This kind of editor-reporter relationship is something I wish the industry could see more of.
What I really appreciate is how “Woodstein” paved the way for some of journalism’s best investigative reporting. Even more importantly, their work turned journalists from underappreciated outsiders to respected watchdogs of the government.
I’m so glad we got to watch this movie. Movies from the ‘70s seem to have this unself-conscious, genuine quality lacking in most blockbusters out today. If this movie had just come out, I’m certain the writer would have been asked to inject some sort of made up love story or sex scene.
Even though I found this movie charming, I couldn’t help feeling frustrated throughout the film. Woodward and Bernstein were extremely lucky: they had underground help from Deep Throat, and the slip-ups from those involved with the White House helped reassure the two reporters that something was going on—that there really is a story.
For example, the White House librarian at first slips up, saying that the one guy (I cannot recall his name despite attempts to find it online) checked out many books on Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, and then she comes back on the phone and denies even knowing the guy. I would imagine that because of stories like this one, now every person who works for any company or organization, such as the White House, would be trained in how to talk to journalists.
Stories like this one make our jobs as journalists more difficult. Back when Woodward and Bernstein were working on this story, records were printed on paper. I imagine that with changing technology, records are now mostly recorded onto computers to save space. It makes me wonder who gets access to these records. My other concern with records going digital is that it makes them easier to hack and easier to alter. I know I’ve got a case of paranoia, but I can’t help thinking of George Orwell’s “1984.”
Woodward and Bernstein built their case from oddities surrounding the case—scraps they found throughout their investigation. I found it incredible that they were granted access to records I would have figured would be private, such as the receipt of the $25,000 check. It seems like anyone could pose as a journalist, there’s no badge of authority you can flash once you become a reporter, and because of this, most likely records will be more difficult to access. Presidents and other officials can hide information. Especially since Sept. 11, they can pull the old “compromise to national security” b.s.
“I’m so glad we got to watch this movie. Movies from the ‘70s seem to have this unself-conscious, genuine quality lacking in most blockbusters out today. If this movie had just come out, I’m certain the writer would have been asked to inject some sort of made up love story or sex scene.”
Sad, but true.
It seems like we’re taught that people in general hate the press, but watching the movie made me realize that there are (or were?) a lot of people out there who really want to help. Even though a ton of sources rejected Bernstein and Woodward, there were always a few who wanted to help. That gave me hope for the profession. As long as there are people who want to help us expose the truth, it doesn’t matter how many enemies we have.
One part that bothered me was when the reporters listened to each other’s phone conversations. (I think one example is when Woodward listened in when Bernstein called the White House Library.) I guess it doesn’t really matter, because they could just tell each other about the conversations afterward, but did that seem a little unethical to anyone else? I don’t remember that happening in the book, either.
That’s an interesting point you bring up, Jennifer. Were the reporters being unethical by letting their partners listen in on the phone conversation? I don’t think that has an easy answer. Bernstein could have transcribed his entire coversation and given it to Woodward to read later. So, is letting him listen in on the conversation that much different? I would say that, as a reporter, you should be up front with your sources about whether you’re letting someone else listen to the conversation. You need to get their confidence and trust, and if they were to find out afterward, they would see it as a lie by omission.
Colleen Bennett
While I was watching the movie, I was reminded of a comment that my Dad made about Deep Throat when his identity was revealed a few years ago. As a preface, my dad is a staunch Conservative and will defend any Republican to the death. Anyway, he made the comment that he had no respect for Woodward and Bernstein for the way they “unethically” obtained their information. He also said that he has even less respect for them because they relied on a federal agent to divulge information to them expressly against his job description as a keeper of America’s secrets, etc.
Why was I thinking of this, might you ask? Well, for starters, I have seen this movie a dozen times and even read the book, and I remembered Deep Throat having way more of an impact than he did. In reality though, Woodward and Bernstein did all the grunt work. Deep Throat really didn’t do anything more than verify that they were on the right track, telling them to “follow the money.” I think this is what is lacking with journalism today: grunt work behind the confidential sources. Too many reporters give readers nameless individuals who say something, and reporters don’t do their own reporting to back up the claim. I think the public’s confidence in journalism would see a significant increase with more implementation of this kind of work.
Secondly, I was struck by some of the practices of “Woodstein.” This could be due to the fact that I’m taking an ethics class right now. The scene in the movie that really shocked me was when Bernstein called the secretary of the office pretending to be someone from public records in order to gain entrance to the office after waiting all day. Although this did lead to more information to substantiate their story, I feel like the movie almost glorified this kind of deception. A story of this magnitude will indeed have a few ethical gaps, but it seemed to me that the way the movie was written almost glorified these types of practices. I guess until I make it into the real world and actually deal with government contacts who won’t give a straight answer, I have no room to judge. However, I wonder if this story broke in 2008 and the same practices were used would the public be so accepting as they were at the height of journalism in the 1970s.
Kat Laskowski
In response to Lori’s comment about the Orwellian potential unleashed by our abilities to keep records digitally, I’m reminded of the book “No Place to Hide” that I (and probably a few others in this class) had to read in my fact-finding class a couple of years ago. That book explored the marriage between the government surveillance system and private data-gathering agencies. It’s frightening how many institutions have access to our personal records without our even knowing about it, as they are now so easily compiled on databases and manipulated by data mining programs. They’re mostly used for commercial ploys like junk mail solicitations–but the fact is that they could certainly be used for something more sinister. (Yeah, call me paranoid, too.)
It’s even scarier when you consider the extent of the corruption behind the Watergate events and how difficult it was for Woodward and Bernstein to uncover it, because this leads to the conclusion that such things could have happened in past administrations and could be happening today. The secret program of warrantless wiretapping perpetrated by the Bush administration underlines that possibility and shows the extent to which our modern technology facilitate this kind of thing. Seeing how complete the government whitewashing was in the Watergate case drove home how important it is for journalists to dig below the surface–especially when they meet as much resistance as “Woodstein” did.
Kim Fulscher
Although the methods Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used in “All the President’s Men” may seem too aggressive to some and may even seem like harassment, they both got major kudos from their editors about their tenacity. They didn’t violate law and they were polite while interviewing. To their best, they didn’t quote anyone who didn’t want to be quoted.
Although Bernstein tricked the secretary in Miami to get into the office of the man he needed to speak to, he introduced himself as a reporter to the man and didn’t use deception about why he was there. The reporters were always honest about being reporters who were working on a story and everyone knew that they could be quoted at any time during the interview.
However, myriad ethics played into Deep Throat’s role in the reporters’ news gathering. Aside from the obvious dilemmas arising from using anonymous sources and ensuring that the sources actually exist, Deep Throat’s agenda steered Woodstein further than a reporter should let himself be steered. He got whatever he wanted into the papers got published, as long as Woodstein could confirm information. Their sole reliance on Deep Throat, in some cases, pointed to the fact that Deep Throat used the reporters to control the downfall of the GOP. He was able to slowly drip information to the press while staying completely anonymous, something he couldn’t have done as a normal intelligence agent. The reporters probably wouldn’t have been able to hold an ethical discussion, since the information was probably too important to keep secret. Deep Throat, as a keeper of U.S. secrets, did have a governmental duty. But I think his duty to let Americans know about a detailed conspiracy outweighed his initial ties.
Throughout the movie, I couldn’t help but notice the differences in journalism that was portrayed from the past from the journalism that is practiced today. To start with, the movie made me realize how lucky journalists are today because of the help of technology, especially the Internet. For example, today no reporter has to flip through a phone book to find a person’s name.
Another difference I noticed from today’s journalism is the editor-reporter relationship. We have learned through the class thus far about the importance of trust in a newsroom. However, while an editor has to trust his or her reporters, he or she has be 100 percent positive that what is being published is the truth. The editor of the newspaper in the movie said it best when he said, “I can’t do the reporting for my reporters. I have to trust them, and I hate trusting anyone.”
When dealing with such a scandalous and secretive story like Watergate, using anonymous sources was extremely risky. The editor fulfilled his job by making his reporters double check all the facts until they were confirmed, while also having faith in his reporters as well. While using anonymous sources and deception has the potential of hurting the credibility of the media and often crosses some ethical boundaries, Bernstein and Woodward were dealing with secret information that they probably wouldn’t have been able to obtain otherwise. They demonstrated the media’s capability of affecting public opinion and the government. Many times, the media, as seen in the movie, act in a system of check and balances in conjunction with the government, sometimes revealing the corrupt practices that the public needs to know.
Beth Romanik
Although of course Deep Throat played a major part in the uncovering of the Watergate scandal (both in the movie and in actuality), I think the movie’s plot also gives a lot of credit to Woodward’s and Bernstein’s intuitions. Even when Deep Throat told them to keep digging, it was their hunches as journalists that really kept them going. That’s why the story The New York Times published barely scratched the surface of what was really going on – true, it would have helped if they had a Deep Throat, but apparently also none of the writers saw any red flags with the information they had turned up.
Journalists really should learn to pay attention to their gut feelings about certain things. “Woodstein” don’t even really know what they’re looking for, but they know it’s there somewhere, so they keep pursuing leads and following each idea to its conclusion to try to uncover any little extra bit. The odds of a journalist getting another Watergate are slim, but if something isn’t sitting right with you about a story or your intuition is just telling you there’s something else there, this movie proves it pays to listen to that.
About the movie itself: I’d never seen it before, and when it ended, my first reaction was that it was pretty abrupt. It seems like it was a small fraction of the book, and it frustrated me that you never got to actually see anyone go to trial or the conclusion of Nixon’s term. However, with a week to think about it, I decided that it was all right. After all, the movie really focused on how it felt for “Woodstein” while they were chasing this story, so it makes sense that the movie concluded after they broke the story.
Case study: “All the President’s Men”
In the movie “All the President’s Men,” editor Ben Bradlee delivers the line that sums it all up when he says to Bernstein and Woodward, “I can’t do the reporting for my reporters, which means I have to trust them. And I hate trusting anybody.” Bradlee’s inherent mistrust exemplifies the editorial values that we have been discussing in class. Bradlee is suspicious of all of Bernstein and Woodward’s information, and because of their extensive use of anonymous sources, he requires them to check and re-check their facts until they have exhausted all information outlets. Bradlee is aware that he has not only his own reputation as editor to uphold, but also the reputations of Woodward, Bernstein, and most importantly, The Washington Post itself. Although the two reporters are visibly frustrated by Bradlee’s constant hesitation to run stories or utilize sources, they trust his judgment and are ultimately rewarded with accurately uncovering one of the biggest political scandals of the century.
The movie “All the President’s Men” used a lot of journalism techniques that I don’t think would be accepted by today’s standards. For example, while many papers use confidential sources I think the Washington Post to an extreme by using Deep Throat as a source for information. I think it is more acceptable for an editor to ask who a confidential source is than it was back in the 1970s. I also think will all of the controversy that has surrounded the journalism industry in regards to plagarism it would be wise for an editor to do more than take a reporter’s word that a source is reliable.
I also think the way the two reporters gathered news was most ingenius and intimidating. I think when Dustin Hoffman’s character intruded into a source’s house by asking for a cigarette was both genius because he got what he wanted and may have stepped over the lines of intruding into someone’s personal space.
In response to Amy’s comment, I have to disagree that the Post went to an extreme by using Deep Throat. Like others have mentioned, he mainly provided guidance and deep background – thing that would not be quotable or usable in a practical way in the story. They were only means to an end that was very important to our country and our profession. I do agree that editors are more comfortable about asking for a reporter’s sources nowadays and I think it’s a good thing. However, it’s unfortunate that it has been necessitated by a string of embarrassments, such as Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair.
I agree that the movie did do a good job of showing a commendable editor-reporter relationship that not only helped ensure accuracy but was also efficient. Sure, editors need to be skeptical in all aspects of the newsroom and hold their reporters under tight scrutiny, but at the same time this can be counter-productive if not done in a professional and at least somewhat trusting manner.
As far as Woodward and Bernstein’s methods for gathering information are concerned, I think that they did what needed to be done. They had to be clever, dedicated and, yes, sometimes a bit aggressive in their tactics. They knew they had a story but encountered much difficulty in fully fleshing it out. Because of this, they had to resort to unorthodox ways in which to get the information. As Kim Fulscher mentioned, they were always polite and never harmed or threatened any of their sources. I’m sure if the woman had felt uncomfortable, she could have asked him to leave and I’m sure he would have. Yes, the method was a little forceful but never illegal or unethical, in my opinion. I think the ends definitely justify the means in this case and I think the reporters did a good job, or at least were depicted as doing such.
I don’t think there could have been any other way to cover the Watergate story. Bernstein and Woodward did what was called for at the time. Many of you are trying to compare the ethics involved back then to the journalism standards of today. This is hard to do, since things are so different today.
Fist, the White House learned its lesson. Presidents and their men will always be doing some shady, secretive things. However, I’m pretty sure that with time, and with the lessons of Watergate, they just got better at it. I think to really uncover anything nowadays, a reporter would have to go far beyond the tactics of Woodstein.
Second, Bernstein and Woodward were reporting in a time well before Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. There was no reason to automatically distrust an anonymous source, especially when someone’s career and life are at stake.
Third, I think reporters today are caught between the demandfor the truth and the demand for journalism standards that ultimately end up safeguarding the truth in the name of credibility. We’re getting less and less information.
I firmly believe that a little lie to a source is fine if that lie ensures that a reporter is getting accurate information otherwise unobtainable. Well it was fine in the ’70s at least.
I noticed something in the movie that, although seemingly insignificant, struck me as odd. There was an instance in which, during a phone interview, Woodward (Robert Redford) encountered a Spanish-speaking source. He quickly called out to anyone that was listening in the newsroom to ask if there was someone present who spoke Spanish. After receiving no response, he briefly attempted to converse with this individual with no success, and then simply hung up. This ended up having nothing to do with the overall plot, and Woodstein eventually broke their story anyway.
I couldn’t help but wonder, however, if this practice occurs commonly in the newsroom. If a reporter is unable to communicate with a possible source due to language barriers, does he often just give up and move on to the next source? Perhaps Woodward later followed up with this source after finding a Spanish speaker to translate the conversation for him, but this was not shown in the movie, so I am going on the assumption that he did not. Suppose this person had been a key source in breaking the story, and had information crucial to revealing the people behind the Watergate scandal. Woodstein would have never known any of this because Woodward was so quick to give up. I understand that due to time constraints and a massive list of possible sources, an unlimited amount of time cannot be spent on pursuing every single source. Nonetheless, I found it interesting how quick he was to jump to the next source. Perhaps they could’ve broken their story much earlier had Woodward simply found a translator.