All The President's Men Analysis

All the President’s Men

It was June of 1972, and little did the American people know, that their highly esteemed government was soon to be caught in one of the biggest scandals of all time; Watergate. This was one of the biggest impacts on why citizens currently have distorted views of our government and its leaders being thought of as immoral and corrupt. When two reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were assigned to further investigate this scandal the truth began to unfold and eventually led to President Nixon’s resignation. This proved just how important of a role the media played in brining about the truth in the Watergate controversy; we also saw a whole new light into depths of investigative journalism and the confidentiality of the sources they may need to use. Without a doubt the media played the
largest role in bringing about the truth in the Watergate scandal, maybe even more-so than court hearings. One reason why the media had such an impact was because there were so many people involved in it. Originally when Woodward was investigating he saw a break in the democratic national party headquarters and was surprised to find top lawyers already assigned to the case.
This aroused further suspicions and in turn his editor and chief partnered him with Bernstein. The team was coined with the name of “Woodstein.” Woodstein worked for weeks digging up the dirt on the scandal, they tried to find everything they could on every single person that could possibly know anything about who was involved. They interviewed hundreds of associates and employees to the Republican Party, they called multiple references, scheduled appointments with those that might have some sort of lead and even had confidential references such as; “Deep Throat” and those that feared their lives would be in jeopardy if they shared information. Once the story was thought clear enough to print it was presented to the editor and he told them that because this was such a serious matter and involved such prestigious men they needed to find one more source that did not deny. When the story was printed it caused an uproar within the government. Every accusation was denied and the Washington
post was verbally attacked, however many people seriously began to take notice and started to ponder the facts stated within the article. The media took responsibility for letting the public in on the dirty secrets their government held from them. The media was accountable for every allegation printed and when debated they held by their story and by their reporters word. This proved that they believed they were telling the truth and that the nation should consider what was going on to be fact. In my personal opinion the media has the most power when it comes to persuasion of the people, and as we all know in American politics if the people are not one hundred percent behind you then you are nothing. The government was loosing the faith of the people and was becoming nothing but a pile of dust. Investigative Journalism can sometimes perceived as yellow journalism and even muckraking but the fact of the matter is that it is not even similar. Yellow journalism and muckraking are the printing of untrue facts such as tabloids, stories, or altered photographs. Where as investigative journalism can be highly respected if done correctly and decently. Investigative journalists seek to print the truth and will not accept anything less. I think that because the media plays such a large role in the publics lives investigative journalism is undeniably a valid role for the media to engage in. However, I feel that there should be a license for investigative journalism, solely because sometimes they are engaging in very deep and thorough investigations and having a license would not only protect the reporter but also the publisher from infringing on any privacies. This would help the person in question feel safer and more aware that when they spoke to this reporter they could trust that they would not endanger them or modify their direct quotes. I believe that this is why many people do not help the media in investigations; in general the media is viewed as devious and will do anything it takes to sell a paper. The general public does not support this and hence the media does not find out vital story influential facts. The media should have a right to investigate and the media should always have the right to print what they please yet I feel that to obtain the correct facts this sort of license would benefit journalists yet I do not feel it should be a requirement. I have only proposed it to promote the willingness of questioned. Should reporters have the constitutional right to keep confidential sources private? The answer is an undeniable yes. Not only should the reporters have this right but the source should have this right as well. A matter such as this deals with the issue of privacy and even though privacy is not specifically stated in any amendment it is considered accounted for in the ninth amendment. This amendment states that certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. In the movie All the President’s Men there was a confidential source that went by the name of “Deep Throat” and he asked to remain confidential and met Woodward through secret garage meetings, to inform him of undisclosed government information. This has to be constitutional because if he had asked Woodward to keep his name and identity private and Woodward had not then Woodward would be in violation of the constitution. Also it can be considered a form of courtesy “Deep Throat” told Woodward what he needed to know, that otherwise he wouldn’t have known, and in return Woodward should feel liable to keep him anonymous. In Conclusion the media can have a positive or negative impression on every action it takes, but I think that the goal of the media is to present the hard facts and the facts only. Then from there whatever effect it has will only be a reflection of the truth. As long as the media prints the truth then no reporter can be in the wrong and the only person, company or organization that the accused can be angry with are themselves.