JOUR 485–002
Rachel M. Ali
Reflective Blog Post
Derived from the Paul Williams Way viewers of the film, “All the President’s Men” can see a perfect example of what Paul Williams meant when explaining the foundation of investigative journalism and how it needs to have an intellectual nature that offers readers all they need to know.
Throughout the film we see the primary investigative duo, Woodward and Bernstein, exhaust all options and leave no rock unturned when it came to finding reliable primary and secondary sources. Woodward is the first to reach out to an old administration official that quickly proves himself as a trustworthy informant for the story when offering his first clue, “follow the money.” This tip then leads to a paper trail, and a messy one at that, where Bernstein then locates a check that connects staff of the President to the Watergate burglars as well as a plethora of other governmental staff into questioning.
While many failed attempts presented themselves when reaching out to possible sources they do find people along the way who act as “whistleblowers” to the investigation. For example, H.R. Haldeman and Hugh Sloan were both discovered to be involved in a called “slush” fund that was used to disguise the check that was discovered at the DA’s office. Since Woodward and Bernstein already have a case being built with the involved names, the two take advantage of heightened emotions when trying to get quotes by stating that they already have the information needed to move forward with the investigation and would like to give certain people a chance to tell their side of the story.
Chapter eight tells readers all about how to question the actions of government officials in a respective manor, which is basically the tedious deed of going through detailed paper trails and databases that tell us more about public authorities and special districts. We see this play out in the film each time Woodward and Bernstein are forced to subject themselves to endless hours of research and phone calls which sometimes lead nowhere. We see a good example of this in the scene where the team has to physically go through all the hard-copy checkout records from the Library of Congress.
It is difficult to say whether or not some of the techniques used by Woodward and Bernstein were ethically correct, however it is obvious that they two were willing to do whatever it took to get the answers needed. While some might say sneaking past secretaries, complimenting women and bombarding families in their homes might not help the image reporters have, it does do one thing; it gets answers.
The Watergate Burglary was a landmark for investigative journalism as it changed the way readers around the world understood breaking news, politics and the role a good reporter holds in all of this. This particular scandal went on for years, perfectly showcasing the lengths an investigative journalist was willing to go to all to obtain the truth and make a difference, even in the world of politics.
Woodward and Bernstein faced many obstacles while investigating the Watergate scandal. Not only did they discover many ideas that lead nowhere, but they were discouraged from continuing on with the story from their own network of employees. Washington Post editors often tried to discourage the pair from moving forward saying they were headed nowhere and at time had very little faith in their efforts. We see this after the mischaracterization of a source was printed causing executive editor Ben Bradlee to keep the team on the story but under immense duress.
What would be done differently with a breaking story like this today would have a lot to do with technology. Not to say that journalists today are lazy, but we have come to reply on the comforts and easy access that come with computers, online databases and cellphones. To say that these two journalists had heart and endurance is an understatement, their lives were in danger yet they still pushed through never losing sight of the idea that the truth will set you free and that America needed this story. Having the patience and understanding to follow through with a story like this and gain the trust of editors and publishers is a lot harder to do the more we move forward in this crazy world we live in that demands and hungers for instantaneous gratification.
From the article, “Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds,” readers can see how hard the team had to work in order to get one step closer to the truth. In the article we read quotes from Kenneth H. Dahlberg who was the President’s campaign finance chairman for the Midwest. Dahlberg claims he hasn’t, “the vaguest idea” of how the check got into the bank account of one of the Watergate buglers. During a phone call he later changes his story stating that he does indeed recall making a cash deposit while in Florida due to the fact that he didn’t want to be carrying around a lot of cash. This was one of the first things that added something solid to the story and gave the reporters something to go off of. Once the check was further examined it led to them to Thomas Monohan, the assistant vice president of the Boca Raton bank who stated that he has signed the check authorization and was also interrogated by the FBI three weeks prior.
When it came to the relationship between editor Harry Rosenfeld and reporters Woodward and Bernstein we see a lot of trust, hard work and hopefulness come into play. Rosenfeld was brave enough to allow junior reporter Bob Woodward to cover such a controversial story. Rosenfeld’s faith must have fueled Woodward’s desire to write such a breakthrough story as nothing like this had ever truly been done before in the history of journalism. While conflicting emotions presented themselves throughout the film it was clear that Rosenfeld supported his writers and was more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, extending deadlines and standing up for the two writers on more than one occasion. Some might agree with me when I say that this kind of devotion to your writers gives them the endurance needed to push through with such a trying story.
What I learned from this movie was the importance of diligence and technology. When I look at the lengths these reporters had to go through I am reminded of just how much easier our jobs are today. They lacked the convince of email and googling a person and were still persistent and never allowed dead ends to discourage them. Watching the way they instantly had to take notes right after phone calls and had to remember so many dates, names and facts is really inspiring to how we do journalism today in the modern world.
Five other important characters in the movie would be the editor Ben Bradlee as he showcased a tough love for the boys often pushing them to dig deeper and get outside of their comfort zones. Deep Throat was possibly the most important character, without his, “follow the money” clue I’m not sure we would even have the story we have today. Hugh Sloan and H.R. Haldeman played vital roles in the movie dealing with the “slush fund” that ended up paying off the Watergate burglars. And Lastly, news editor Harry Rosenfeld who vouched for the boys and supported their work seeing it through beginning to end.
If I had a chance to ask the reporting due of Woodward and Bernstein advice on journalism I would have to ask them how they stayed on track and remained diligent even when doors slam in their faces. This is a job where a lot of hard work goes into getting little glory, spotlight and gratification so knowing how they remain sharp through all the extended deadlines and unworthy sources would be interesting. I would also like to know how they felt knowing that their lives could be in danger when doing something that had never been done before, questioning their own government.
“On my honor, I have watched “All the President’s Men”
Word Count: 1348