Reflective blog post, “All the President’s Men”

The movie, “All the President’s Men” showed that the system of democracy in America works and the Watergate scandal showed both the good and darker sides of government in Washington D.C.

Watergate is a complex set of political scandals that occurred over the span of several years. June 17, 1972 was when the news broke about the Watergate scandal.

Carl Bernstein and Robert Woodward spent a lot of their time searching for clues and for sources surrounding the scandals of Watergate. According to Paul Williams, he suggests that investigative journalism involves more than finding one source for a story or the audience’s attention will fall flat.

A journalist cannot give up easily on a story, and must investigate more in-depth. Bernstein and Woodward spent a lot of man hours searching through phone books, ex-boyfriends, visiting individuals homes, and much more. If Bernstein and Woodward gave up on their leads, the full-story and admission of wrongdoing may not have ever occurred.

Bernstein and Woodward helped shape history with their investigative reporting. The largest step for Bernstein and Woodward would be the “Feasibility Study”. They both faced a lot of obstacles and sources that desired to remain anonymous. Bernstein and Woodward had to poke and prod their way to the facts and get individuals to admit the truth.

Even when the truth was denied in the media and other reports, the truth came out in the end — even if it did take several years to finally develop.

Bernstein and Woodward used several secondary and primary sources. Some of the primary sources that were used during the Watergate scandal involved sifting through taxes and checks.

Bernstein and Woodward sorted through library checkouts at the Library of Congress. Bernstein and Woodward used one of their fellow employees to get a secondary source.

The secondary source was the listing of individuals who work for the Department of the Committee to re-elect. Bernstein was able to get the travel records for Donald Segretti for the year 1971–1972.

Most of the people trails that Bernstein and Woodward followed were face-to-face interactions. Sometimes those interactions involved jotting down information while taking a bathroom break in the subject’s home.

Sources such as “Deep Throat” were on deep background. “Deep Throat” is a whistleblower. At first “Deep Throat” did not want to talk about Watergate, but then he was willing to meet with Woodward. Woodward is able to confirm information with Deep Throat to progress the story.

Dahlberg was willing to talk to Bernstein and talk about the tough situation he was caught up in. Dahlberg admitted to giving the $25,000 check to Mr. Stans.

According to the Investigative Reporter’s Handbook, “One type of source is the whistleblower. Whistleblowers are “currents” or “formers” who seek attention or find themselves unwillingly in the spotlight because they know of wrongdoing.”

By using workplace directories and newspaper clippings Woodward and Bernstein were able to find more sources.

“His extensive, largely unquestioning use of anonymous sources in sensitive situations has been repeatedly debated, especially when it was recently revealed that the source known as “Deep Throat” in the Watergate investigation was a highly placed FBI official,” according to the Investigative Reporters Handbook.

Investigating the Executive Branch includes the process of following how money or where money is spent. One good way to find where money is spent is by looking at agency budgets.

Deep Throat tells Woodward to “follow the money”.

Woodward was able to go to Florida and find some checks and records that showed money being sent and given to Kenneth Dahlberg. Finding this check helped further the progression of the investigation and lead to Bernard Barker and Stans, which led to the Committee to Re-elect.

Bernstein and Woodward faced the most difficult situation, for the ethics of investigative reporting, when it came to confirming information.

No one wanted to be identified because they were scared for their own well-being. Bernstein and Woodward seemed to conduct several ambush interviews.

Another huge aspect of the Watergate scandal was the use of unidentified sources. Bernstein and Woodward tried to convince many of the unidentified sources to go on-record.

Woodward and Bernstein were very pushy in trying to get information from Ms. Milland — even after she told them to leave her house.

Bernstein gets the fourth confirmation on Haldeman by counting to ten. This strategy is questionable because the conversation could be confusing for the man on the other end of the phone call. This strategy does not seem like a legitimate confirmation, but in the end the confirmation was correct.

Nixon wanted the 1972 election to end in a landslide victory. With Millions of dollars being handed around and corruption in the government, reporting on something this huge only comes around once in a lifetime.

The Plumbers, such as Hunt and Liddy, came up with ideas to destroy the Democratic Party. The Watergate scandal shaped America’s political climate and became a landmark for investigative reporting.

The event was a landmark for investigative reporting because “Woodstein” was able to show the importance of sticking with a story and investigative reporting grew because of their efforts.

Nowadays, investigative reporting is harder to encourage because of the online frenzy and need for fresh news fast.

This hunger for news may leave some investigative reporting on the back burner. Investigative reporting takes time to develop.

The Washington Post came under fire when they continued to report on the Watergate scandal and the investigative reporting put the Washington Post’s future on the line.

The writings by Woodward and Bernstein helped encourage young men and women to become investigative reporters.

“Woodstein” had to find information that is hard and confirmed. It was difficult for them to confirm information when people who they would interview kept switching around the facts and non-denial denials.

The editors were worried that they would lose their jobs, if “Woodstein” messed up the story on Watergate.

The newspaper was dealing with hundreds of thousands of unaccounted for cash that is tied into the government. Reporting on such a big story is a risk worth taking.

If “Woodstein” reported in current times, the reporting duo would be able to search for much of their information online, such as phone numbers, addresses and any public records related to the committee to re-elect.

When “Woodstein” interviewed the bookkeeper for the second time, they had a great strategy in question asking. They faked her out with saying they knew who was involved.

They would say, “‘P’ for Porter” and get her confirmation. From the ethical standpoint, the confirmation over the phone, by counting to ten, is a point worth debating.

In the article, “Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds” Bernstein and Woodward use the source, Kenneth H. Dahlberg, one of the President’s campaign finance chairman.

Dahlberg is a perfect source because he was one of the individuals responsible for transporting the check for $25,000.

Maurice Stans was contacted for the article, but was never reached for comments on the situation.

Another individual who was interviewed by the Washington Post was Clark MacGregor. The importance of MacGregor being interviewed adds a source that was an assistant to Nixon and later became the Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

I learned that the editor does not care what the reporter thinks or what is obvious, but the editor wants to know what is confirmed and real.

The editor is a straight shooter and wants to cut through anything written that is not hard and true. The reporter has to continue to talk with the editor in order to get his or her story published.

The reporter has to deal with rejection in a positive manner and keep researching till the story is good enough for print.

Ben Bradlee is straightforward and shows no love. Bradlee has to trust in his reporters to finish the story, and try to stick with them.

Bernstein and Woodward continued to show their dedication to the story through the thick and thin of the reporting process.

Bradlee became more and more frustrated throughout the movie because no one would go on record. Bradlee speaks on trusting reporters in the movie.

“I can’t do the reporting for my reporters, which means I have to trust them. And I hate trusting anybody,” said Bradlee.

I learned that persistence and paying attention to the little details could get a reporter very far. A story does not develop without questioning how and why something is occurring.

At the beginning of the film Woodward is pestering a lawyer in attendance at the five Cuban’s court meeting. I find that the pestering may seem unethical in certain circumstances, but is essential for a journalist to be inquisitive and seek the truth.

Woodward and Bernstein had to deal with cover ups and lies by government officials, and people such as the librarian, covering up books checked out in the Library of Congress. I learned to not be afraid of “no’s” and to keep asking questions and seeking the truth.

There are many characters that are important in the Watergate scandal. Hunt worked for Colson and those two are important characters in the discovery of the events that occurred during Watergate.

Hunt investigated Kennedy. Woodward being able to uncover those facts led to other facts coming to the surface.

Another important character is “Deep Throat”. Woodward is able to meet with Deep Throat to ask questions about whether he and Bernstein are on the right track.

The bookkeeper played an important role in finding the amount of money involved in the scandal and that John Mitchell was in control.

Mitchell was the Attorney General and several men worked under him. Donald Segretti was connected to Dwight Chapin. Chapin was connected to President Nixon.

Hugh Sloan plays an important role, and was the treasurer. Sloan knew how much money was involved in the fund and handed out the money and interacted with John Mitchell.

Later on, the audience finds out that Haldeman ran the whole operation. The fact is, that the corruption and cover up involved the entire U.S. Intelligence community.

The top five characters are: Deep Throat, Ben Bradlee (because he ran the articles on the press), John Mitchell, Bob Haldeman and Hunt.

If I could ask Bernstein and Woodward any question I would ask, “How did they not give up on the story when they had so many “no’s” from the members of the re-election committee and how did they manage to keep searching for more sources?”

On my honor, I have watched “All the President’s Men” in its entirety.

[Total Word Count: 1752]