Midterm Blog Post JOUR 485

While watching the film “All the President’s Men,” I saw the investigative process play out through the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The duo pieced together many sources of information to ultimately expose the Watergate Scandal.

In this film, I saw the “Paul Williams Way” of investigative reporting in “Woodstein’s” investigative process. Beginning with the conception of the story, Woodward and Bernstein stayed fully informed on events and news related to the topic.

Early in the film, Woodward was assigned to go to a courthouse to cover the burglary story. At first, this was not seen as a story of high importance, but because he was there, his curiosity about the case was sparked further. Both Woodward and Bernstein were also constantly reading other news articles and got out of the office listening to what other potential sources were saying.

In addition, Woodward and Bernstein had to assess their investigation throughout the process. They had to determine whether the investigation would be possible and assess the issues that would arise with anonymous sources, security issues, gaps or possible lack of fairness in their reporting, and even the dangers or threats of lawsuits that could occur.

Woodward and Bernstein evaluated what news about the scandal was already out there and what was missing for them to report on by viewing other newspaper publications as secondary sources. They also listened to broadcast new programs and searched in a library for phone books.

Woodward and Bernstein used their research and information from interviews to put together a list of people in connection to the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) to find and confirm information

By pairing research with human sources, the duo was able to create a people trail that filled in gaps in their reporting. Their investigation was depended on information from human sources. This is why they persistent in finding and calling people who may have more information regarding the scandal.

Throughout the investigation, they encountered people who did not want to talk or be “whistleblowers,” but these sources were pertinent to understanding the wrongdoing involving CREEP. Their anonymous caused problems with credibility and they had to confirm information from multiple sources in building the article. “Deep Throat,” who was working in the FBI, was an anonymous source in the investigation who provided key details and guidance including to “follow the money.”

Woodward and Bernstein took this direction and followed the money in campaign financing for Nixon’s CREEP. They monitored who contributed money and where money was going, including the White house Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, and the Attorney General, John Mitchell. By connecting the people, the money, and the agencies, the duo was able to crack the Watergate Scandal.

Woodward and Bernstein’s main dilemma was that many of their sources wished to be anonymous. They aimed to be as ethical as possible in their reporting, by confirming information with multiple sources, not disclosing the identity of anonymous sources, and giving the opportunity for people to give a comment in what they were going publish. Also, when knocking on doors and calling sources, they presented themselves honestly as reporters for the Washington Post and gave the reason why they were there.

Woodward and Bernstein’s investigative work on the Watergate Scandal exposed corruption in government and a shocking abuse of power by the President of the United States. This case shows the importance of investigative journalism in exposing wrongdoing and holding those in power accountable. I think that the work of Woodward and Bernstein showed the country that investigative journalists do important work and have a vital role in society.

The investigation was not an easy process as the reporters and the Washington post faced criticism for publishing articles on the scandal. The duo also struggled to find sources who wouldn't slam the door in their face. Many sources were also not willing to go on the record. Another obstacle was that at first, their editors discounted the story as important and later on, after realizing the weight of the case, their editors pressed them to have reliable sources.

The duo did research by searching through phone books,interviewing sources over the phone and in person, and looking at financial documents. When the duo faced obstacles, they continued by talking to more people and seeking more information from their sources. For example, for the duo to run one of the stories, their editor said that needed another source to confirm the information. Because the source wanted to be anonymous, Bernstein skillfully had the source stay on the phone while he counted to ten as a way to confirm the information.

Today, much of the research would be conducted through online databases and other government records but the methods of talking to human sources would still be applied because human sources fill in the gaps where research lacks.

The sources in this article from the Watergate investigation by Woodward and Bernstein included the FBI, files from the Department of Justice, federal investigators, a spokes person from CREEP, the Deputy Director of white house communications, and three attorneys. The numerous amount of sources benefited the article, however some of the sources detracted from the story. For example, the spokesman from the CREEP said that one of the stories written by the post was ‘“not only fiction but a collection of absurdities.”’

I noticed team work and the concept of “trust but verify” from the relationship between “Woodstein” with their editor, Ben Bradlee. Bradlee had faith and believed them that the information was reliable, but their he pushed them to ensure accuracy and credibility. The reporters were able to voice their opinion to him and Bradley had to have faith in his reporters. This ultimately gave Woodward and Bernstein the confirmation to run with the story.

After watching this film, I learned about the importance of being persistent and determined while working on a difficult investigation. Woodward and Bernstein could have given up in the times where the investigation wasn’t going anywhere, when they couldn’t find sources that would talk, when their editors at first didn’t have faith in the story, or when they were told that their lives were in danger. Instead, they kept researching, kept talking people and running with leads, and stuck with their conviction that this investigation was going to be as impactful as it was.

I also learned about the importance of human sources in investigations from this movie. Research through primary and secondary sources begin the investigation but human sources provides important eyewitness information. Woodward and Bernstein followed a people trail and built a bulk of their investigation off of what their human sources contributed.

The executive editor, Ben Bradlee, Deep Throat, and Hugh Sloan were key figures in this film. Without Bradlee’s trust in Woodward and Bernstein, their stories would have never been published.

Deep Throat provided key information for Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation about the Nixon administration. Sloan, who was the treasurer of CREEP honestly answered Woodward and Bernstein’s questions and was a vital source as he helped them further investigate the Watergate scandal.

If I could ask the reporting duo anything, I would ask them if there was ever a moment when they genuinely felt like giving up and what they did to continue on. It was inspiring to to see the reward of Woodward and Bernstein’s efforts and perseverance. While there will be obstacles and discouragement along the way in the investigative process, it is worth it to work hard and continue on.

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

Word Count: 1,252