I had the fortunate experience of meeting with Mr. Bob Woodward of Watergate fame. For those of you who don’t know, he and Carl Bernstein broke the biggest story in politics while young journalists at the Washington Post. Because the class was so small, we were able to talk with Mr. Woodward in an intimate environment and ask him tons of questions. He was extremely fascinating and also interested in our opinions on the state of political discourse and the journalism industry. For this paper, our professor asked us to answer this question: how would have Watergate played out in the 21st century?
————————————————————————————————————————————
”Now trending on Twitter: #watergate.” “Respond to this poll via Facebook: Do you think Nixon should resign?” “Submit your photos of Deep Throat to the CNN iReport team.” These are some of the ways in which the Watergate story would have been covered had the story broke today. The media landscape has evolved and now hosts fast-moving news organizations who cater to an attention-deficit audience-coupled to make Watergate’s 1970s execution difficult in today’s society. Moreover, Bob Woodward scored big by securing Mark Felt his go-to source, a rather difficult feat to have a top-ranking Federal Bureau of Intelligence official as the bearer of invaluable information. It is unlikely Watergate would have been found in the same form today, however, it is reasonable to say that eventually Richard M. Nixon would be found guilty of lying to the American people. The quick pace at which the media operates combined with the diluted marketplace makes for a distracted audience and tight-lipped politicians. Therefore, the likeliness that this would have escalated to the point it had would be lower nowadays.
Watergate Hotel
Americans now have the ability to watch dozens of24-hour news channels, access news sources at any hour of the day on a multitude of electronic devices, and interact with the daily news cycle via social media sites. With an overwhelming number of mediums, newsworthy stories manifest themselves quickly and spread through the American population (or rather “go viral”) but within a shorter time frame compared to the 1970s. Events unfold at a rapid pace as outlets aim to be the first to break latest developments and commandeer their networks to dedicate hour-long news programs to focusing on a single news piece. The media now moves at a much faster pace with little time devoted to long-form, in-depth journalism and hone in rather on the immediate and “real-time” news.
Today, the accessibility of news and also the heightened competition across media outlets directly proportionate to the increase in outlets means political scandals and controversies unfurled more and more quickly than in the past. The 1998 scandal surrounding President Bill Clinton’s sexual encounters with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was prominent news for six months including coverage, trial, and ultimately impeachment. More recently, former Representative Anthony Weiner’s 2011 “sexting” scandal unraveled before the public quickly and within a month and a half of posting nude photos to Twitter, Weiner resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives.
However, Watergate took two years (from the arrests at the Democratic National Committee headquarters to President Nixon’s resignation) to fully unfold. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two young reporters at The Washington Post, went to great lengths to keep the story under tight control, especially the identity of Deep Throat. Woodward and Bernstein tenaciously pursued reputable sources for their stories and investigation. The duo searched through phonebooks and employee directories of Nixon insiders and met with them at their private residences-at times going as far as appearing on their doorsteps, knocking on their doors, and requesting meetings immediately.
Carl Bernstein (left) and Bob Woodward (right) of the Washington Post in the 1970s
The 1970s news cycle allowed and required thorough journalism to maintain credibility and avoid costly retractions. Given the hyper speed of today’s media and news cycle, Watergate would have unfolded at a dizzying pace if under 2011 standards. Moreover, today’s media puts fierce pressure on law and policy makers to remedy situations by holding the spotlight on them and the offenders so tirelessly. Nixon would have resigned nearly immediately had Woodward and Bernstein been journalists in 2011.
The competitiveness in the marketplace for coverage leads to a dilution of a single outlets’ influential voice and in tum, creates an over-stimulated and distracted audience. In the 1970s, 10 million people tuned into the CBS Evening News to give their undivided attention to anchorman Walter Cronkite. Today, that CBS Evening News viewership number has been cut in half. Control of the media has now been spread out across more outlets: television, web, print, Twitter, and Facebook with nearly an infinite number of voices from journalists, reporters, and bloggers. A highly impressive broadcaster like Cronkite simply does not exist in today’s news media as Americans are no longer limited to one source of news, and with that, the reach and influence an individual journalist or program has continues to be diluted.
Today’s saturated news market also means networks and newspapers cover an expansive number of topics to cater to as many audiences as possible. This dilutes the power of headlines and also the competitive market requires outlets to cover news they did not necessarily break. In the 1970s and Watergate, the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post set the precedent for that day’s news. If Watergate were a scandal in 2011, nearly every outlet would have voiced an opinion or conducted their own investigative research on Watergate thus offsetting the effectiveness of Woodward and Bernstein’s impressive journalism.
The media today has become a useful platform for politicians to leverage and promote themselves and aim to maintain positive relationships with journalists with great reach and power. In tum politicians continue to get friendlier with the media and people have grown accustomed to seeing lawmakers on television, connect with them via Twitter, and hear them on the radio. Those in politics have learned from the mistakes of the fallen-from Sarah Palin’s inability to state where she gets her news to George Allen’s insensitive “macaca” comment-by carefully navigating the media circus starting at choosing the right reporters to speak with, sticking to talking points, and controlling the message. Politicians and those in power have become more tight-lipped and particular about whom they interview with and what they say.
In unraveling the details of the Watergate scandal, Woodward and Bernstein relied on sources who, after a bit of prodding, began to open up about their affiliations with the infamous scandal. The Deep Throat informant would be less likely to exist today than in the 1970s as today people appear to be much more cautious with their words and whom they give scoops to especially high-ranking government officials. The paranoia of onlookers and suspicion of someone filming or photographing potentially incriminating evidence curbs the today’s well trained politicians from divulging too much and Deep Throat sources would be hard to find.
Mark “Deep Throat” Felt
Woodward met Deep Throat (Mark Felt) through a series of fortunate, random events in his time as a courier and rising journalist while Felt was a senior member of the FBI. Felt was eager to assist Woodward in his reporting as Felt not only disagreed with Nixon’s administration’s policies and tactics but was also bitter to be passed over as FBI director in favor of an ally to the president. Watergate would be a very different story and political event had Woodward not connected with Felt. Due to the rare relationship by today’s standards Woodward and Felt shared, it is difficult to say that Watergate would have existed in the same form.
The small likelihood that Deep Throat’s identity would ever be revealed probably gave Felt solace and facilitated his willingness to divulge sensitive information to Woodward. Today however the media is swarming with paparazzi tactics to closely monitor key political figures. It is more likely that Deep Throat today would have been uncovered long before Woodward and Bernstein revealed his identity 33 years after the case closed.
If Watergate were to occur in the year 2011, as a result of the constant motion of the news media, the timeline would have shrunk from two years to more likely a matter of months. Plus, the breakout story would have been covered by more news sources, thus diluting the influence of Woodward and Bernstein. Above all, the identity of Deep Throat would have been revealed earlier than the 33 years Woodward and Bernstein were able to keep it a secret; that level of confidentiality is unheard of in today’s “Big Brother’s Watching You” world.
In the end, Nixon would have been eventually caught. He would have had a difficult time successfully covering-up such a massive operation forever. Woodward and Bernstein accomplished a feat no other journalists were even willing to attempt: reveal the lies of an American president and eventually take him down. They will forever be remembered as amazing American journalists. Yet, it is reasonable to say other journalists would have sooner or later picked up the story and ran with it. The media narrative would have taken a different direction, but Nixon would not have been able to escape his miscalculations and dishonesty. 1970s or the 2000s, no matter the year, Nixon would have been forced to own up to his wrongdoings, admit his guilt to the American people, and tarnish his legacy forever.
Mark Chou Writes 