Midterm Blog Post “All The Presidents Men”

The film “All The President’s Men” is true to the craft of investigative journalism as well as the narrative it closely follows from the unfolding events of the Watergate scandal in 1971.

The covering of this scandal, depicted in detail through the film, walks distinctly through the 11-step procedure for journalists to ensure that they pull everything in their investigation together — The Paul Williams Way to storyboarding. The film took a deep dive into each of these steps; however, the film most immediately addresses the importance of the “go/no-go decision.”

The go/no decision is “deciding based on feasibility if an investigation will yield at least a minimum story” (Investigative Reporters Handbook, 6thEd.). The Watergate scandal’s origins are found from a weaker story that began the journey to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovering a much larger story.

In the film, after several failed phone interviews and questionings of people involved in the scandal, Woodward and Bernstein looked no further than investigating secondary sources. In addition to a handful of suspicious conversations, the reporters primarily utilized their access to library data and bank statements. This led to the reporter’s major expediter in uncovering the scandal: following the money.

The journalists, however, couldn’t rely on these records alone; they had to rely on primary sources as well. This is depicted clearly through Woodward and Bernstein going door to door attempting to question every member on the committee to re-elect the president. After several failed attempts, their biggest source appeared to be the anonymous sources, “Z” (the grand jury judge) and “Deep Throat” (former FBI associate director).

Great journalism pairs documents and data with people who can shine a light on the data, numbers, explain the context and fill in the blanks — this is known as a “People Trail.” A specific trail of people, known as Whistleblowers, played a prominent role in the Watergate scandal investigation. The primary whistleblower, Deep Throat, provided the reporters with critical information regarding the Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to the resignation of president Richard Nixon in 1974.

Having a deep understanding of the people and agencies involved in the executive branch of government helps investigative journalists map out how certain aspects are connected. For the investigators at the Washington Post, there understanding served them well. Not only did these reporters understand how to make sense of money tracing, they understood the hierarchy and knew how the contracting process can lead to important investigations.

In the Watergates particular case, the reporter’s knowledge of financial hierarchy and distribution roles served them well in uncovering the whole of the story piece by piece. The committee’s financial corruption was uncovered through uncovered financial/governmental records.

From checking with the person potentially exposed before running the story to source verification, the reporters that covered Watergate were ethical throughout the entirety of the process up until the big story hit print. The only issue perhaps was the ambush interviews conducted when the reporters randomly appeared on the committee’s doorstep to question them. Even this, nonetheless, was conducted respectfully — oftentimes journalists must nag and surprise to reach the core of a story.

This scandal carries historical weight not only because of its influence on legislative action but because of its impact on the journalism industry. Watergate showed that media can be a weapon to aid the public in holding authorities accountable. Corruption and confidentiality have always been a part of politics but the advancement in journalistic integrity has since helped break the news of corruption to the public ever since.

The reporters and their paper faced obstacles such as false leads, dogged footwork, denials, evasions and dead ends. The topic was researched through a combination of primary and secondary sources, specifically tracing records of money, hotels, outside connections, all while trusting on their confidential source. Today, I believe it certain aspects of Watergate, such as source requesting record information and publication medium would be different from the time when it happened due to social media and technology advancement.

Woodward and Bernstein pursued the holes in the story relentlessly to keep it afloat. From the gaps in the story with Hunt to the conspiracy with Haldeman, the reporters pressed forward with intent, trusting his gut and his confidential source.

In an article written by Woodstein, “Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds,” the reporters covered $25,000 cashier’s check, apparently earmarked for President Nixon’s re-election campaign, was deposited in April in a bank account of one of the five men arrested in the break-in at Democratic Headquarters on June 17, 1972.

A key source in this story was Kenneth H. Dahlberg and Macgregor. These sources put legs on the suspicion that surrounded how a $25,000 check was deposited into the bank account of one of the burglars.

The relationship between editor and reporter is crucial to the operation of a newsroom. As a reporter, the main focus lies on the story and writing a piece that matters. As an editor, the focus shifts to how the story fits within the publication, how the audience will receive a story and the overall accuracy/polish of a story.

With this relationship that employs two distinct roles, they work together to make a story come together with precision and reliability for its readers. The editor, nonetheless, has the last say on the story, whether or not it will be running.

For example, Ben Bradlee played a crucial part in pushing Woodstein to refine their information and dig deeper into the story. The reporters had to trust that Bradlee was correct in wanting more information from their stories and that their story wouldn’t hold up at first.

After watching the film, I learned the importance of persistence and secondary sources. The story would have never gained traction without the reporter’s persistence in pursuit of their sources.

In addition to this lesson, I learned the importance of the use of secondary sources. The secondary source that sparked the story “Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds” was the document that recorded the transfer of the $25,000 check.

Aside from Woodward and Bernstein, characters such as Deep Throat, Ben Bradlee and Harry Rosenfeld. Deep Throat played probably the largest role in uncovering the scandal by acting as an anonymous source for Woodward.

Ben Bradlee was crucial to the story in the sense that he pushed the reporters to dive deeper, refusing to publish the story until the gaps within the story were filled. Harry Rosenfield was crucial in pushing the reporters to ask “why?”

He is quoted in the film saying: “I’m not interested in what you think is obvious. I’m interested in what you know. What we don’t know is why they wanted to bug Democratic Headquarters.”

This quote, like several others in the film, point to his importance in the overall divulgence of the story.

If I could speak to the infamous reporting duo, I would ask what the primary technique they used in getting sources to speak. In addition, I would be interested in asking them how they connected with the anonymous sources used to uncover the bulk of the story.

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

Word Count: 1,200 words