All The Presidents Men Blog Post
I have found that investigative reporting is not for the faint at heart. The key to being a great journalist in this field is not to look at the surface of a story, but to dig into the roots of what really is going on behind the scenes. You need to have a tough personality and the mindset to dive deeper into a story to gain all the information you need.
According to the Paul Williams Way of investigative reporting, there are 11 steps a journalist should follow when handling a story. The two Washington Post reporters in the movie All The Presidents Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did an excellent of taking these steps in order to crack the Watergate scandal.
Woodward and Bernstein prepared their story extremely well by planning it all out and researching every fact they had as much as they could. They also did what a lot of reporters forget to do, which is to continue investigating and evaluating the story after it is finished. A lot of times after a report finishes a story and submits it, they think the story is over, but there could be new action or deeper stories stemming off of it.
From when the initial robbery happened into Watergate on 17 June 1972, all the way to President Nixon resigning from his office on 9 August 1974, the investigation took almost 2 years to bring to a close. The two Washington post reporters did not crank this code on their own; they had help from other reporters. Getting facts from others and verifying information helped fill in all the little holes in the Watergate scandal.
It is important to remember when working on a story to keep in contact with others who may be sources or might be writing a separate piece on the same story so you can help develop the story as far as it can go. It is all about spreading the truth, the full truth.
When it comes to secondary and primary sources in the film, I found that there was a good amount of them. The secondary sourced that the reporters worked with specifically were thinks like old cashed checks or lists of people’s names. They worked on verifying those sources by contacting people to get all the information that was needed, even if at times the source did not want to be bothered.
I really enjoyed the parts of the film when Woodward and Bernstein got creative in order to get the information verified. They did things like rephrasing a question in order to get the answer they wanted or asking yes or no questions.
My favorite tactic that was used in order to verify information was when Bernstein was on the phone and he said to hang up the phone if the answer to his question was yes, and the man stayed on the phone. I just thought that was so slick and clever.
That same phone call at the end of the movie helped trigger the whistleblower, Deep Throat. The Investigative Reporters and Editors Incorporation and Brant Houston explain the term whistleblower as “‘currents’ or ‘formers’ who seek attention or find themselves unwillingly in the spotlight because they know of wrongdoing.”
Deep Throat was an important part of the investigation by being one of the most helpful sources. It was so interesting to me that the duo “Woodstein” could us him as a source but not have to use his real name. It was not until 30 May 2005, when Deep Throats identify was finally revealed.
Being that he was a second in command FBI agent, this made his an extremely reliable source for the article. His real name was Mark Felt, and he knew every detail about the Watergate scandal and who was trying to ruin the campaign for Nixon.
During the investigation of the Watergate scandal, I saw a few different techniques that were being used. Woodstein needed to figure out how the government was involved in the scandal by using their heads to fully understand all the different government agencies. I think the best example of this from the film was when Deep Throat explained to Woodward that all of the government was involved.
When it came down to ethics in the film, I found that it was strange when Bernstein asked the librarian to nod her head in order to answer his questions since she refused to talk. I am not sure if that was very ethical because if I were in the same position, I would need a verbal or written agreement that the information is verifiable. A simple nod just does not do enough for me to feel confident in the answer.
Since this was about the president of the United States, the Watergate scandal was an extremely important part of history. The president becomes a household name in everyone’s home, so when a scandal erupts, it is big news.
I believe that this scandal was a landmark for investigative reporting because it really was the first time anyone ever went up against the government and succeeded in getting out the truth. No matter what threats or roadblocks were in the way, the reporters were determined to figuring out the deep answers and getting to the truth.
Being that Woodstein was going up against such a big force, they faced quite a bit of obstacles. Whether it was a source not wanting to comment or trying to figure out if what they were printing was facts, they always found a way to figure it out.
They would work on keeping the story rolling by going around the question and re-wording it to get the answer they wanted. One of the tactics that Bernstein used was being charming and trying to get the information out of a source by being smooth.
If a reporter were hit with one of these obstacles in this day in age, it would be much different. Although we may do the same tactics as the duo did, we can use recording devices while speaking with a source, and if the state law permits, you don’t even have to tell them.
The article I chose from the Washington Post Watergate files, is the story entitled “FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats” by Bernstein and Woodward. They used basic sources such as attributions to the Department of Justice and FBI files and Law enforcement sources. Along with Marilyn Berger, who was the Washington Post staff writer who confirmed that the Deputy Director of the White House Communications Ken W. Clawson said that he wrote the letter claiming the ignored the racial slur from Senator Edmund S. Muskie.
Looking at the different things that went on this film between the editor and reporter, I learned that the relationship between the two is very important. If I were an editor, I would have constant anxiety with the progress that my reporter was making if we did not have a close relationship and a lot of trust. On the reporter’s side, yes he is the one going out and getting all the information, but he needs to have faith in the editor that he will bring the story together in the vision the reporter had.
I learned a few different things from this movie about investigative reporting. The first thing that I learned is that if I am not a quick writer, it will be hard to make it in this career. Things are always changing and there is always an interview going on so I need to be able to write things quick in order to remember and deliver the full story. Another thing I learned, going hand in hand with my first point, is that this job can be very stressful. You will always be trying to find new information and need to confirm sources by deadlines and that can be very stressful.
Besides the obvious Woodward and Bernstein, there were other characters that played an important role. Bob Haldeman was one because he was one of the burglars who were caught and that helped start the whole investigation. Another important character is Hugh Sloan because he gave the reporters information that they needed and was the secretary on the committee to reelect the president.
A third important character in this story would be Deep Throat because he gave a lot of information to the Washington Post on the Watergate stories. I would also have to say that Ben Bradlee was very important because he was the editor of the paper and drove the story on what was going to be published and what was not. Lastly, a fifth important character to this investigation would be Marilyn Berger for getting information from Clawson.
If I could ask Woodward and Bernstein one thing, I think it would be on how they felt when they finished publishing all their stories and coming out with all their information that cause Nixon to resign about the Watergate scandal. They taught me a lot on how to gain information and how to persevere with a tough story. They are great reporters and I am glad that we had to watch this movie and write about it because it taught me so many things I can use on my own stories.
On my honor, I have watched “All the President’s Men” in its entirety.