Of the time of the scandal, have to say about this interpretation of watergate we. Will consider why it matters. The so what questions. Why debunking this myth matters. Along the way well have some time for q a. Here are a few names that we will encounter during our class today. Bob woodward and carl bernstein. These were reporters of the Washington Post, the lead reporters in the watergate scandal for the post, they teamed up in 1972 and worked together through the scandal in 1974. Together they wrote to books about the washington scandal. Catherine graham is another name that will encounter. She was the post publisher during the watergate scandal. The post was a family own newspaper and she was the publisher from 1969 to 1979. She backed the watergate investigation. Sometimes in the face of government pressure, Catherine Graham died in 1970. He was the postexecutive at the time. That is the top news room official of a newspaper. Then broadly broadly oversaw the watergate coverage with his newspaper. Me he was the executive editor for 1968 to 1991, a period that watchfully coincided with the posts rise to the top ranks of american journalism. Bradley died in 2014. Another name that will hear is that of michael get investigative panels from both houses of congress. Federal investigators, special prosecutors, fbi agents, and ultimately the u. S. Supreme court. It is safe to say that exposing and unraveling the watergate scandal was not in effect outsourced to the American News media. Rolling up the scandal of watergate was not the work of two young aggressive reporters from the Washington Post. But over the years that has become the dominant narrative of watergate. Woodward and bernstein of the Washington Post, through their reporting, brought down and exposed the misconduct of the Nixon Administration, and brought down his presidency. Its a narrative that is woven into the popular understanding of the watergate scandal. It pops up often. It pops up often. So, why has this become the dominant narrative . Why is it that so many people misunderstand americas greatest political scandal . Lets take a look at those and related questions during this presentation. Nixon, and august 1974, became the first u. S. President ever to resign the office. Some 20 men associated with his presidency and his 1972 Reelection Campaign went to jail because of crimes committed related to watergate. Its a vast and sprawling scandal. As ive said, the dominant narrative watergate is that woodward and bernstein of the post brought down nixons presidency through their dogged reporting. Why is this a media myth . First of all, what is a medium f anyways . A medium f is a wellknown story prominent story about, and or by the news media, that is widely believed, and often retold, but which under scrutiny, under close examination, becomes apocryphal or wildly exaggerated. A media myth. And what are some examples of media myths . In my book, getting it wrong, i lay out ten or 12 different media myths including this one about hearst, the publisher of the new york journal in the late 19th century. He supposedly furnished the war with spain and the late 19th century. That a newspaper mogul was powerful enough to bring the country into a war it other wise wouldnt have fought. That is a media myth. And other Media Methods to do with walter conch right of cbs news and his on air assessment about the war in vietnam. The end of february 1968 he said that that the u. S. Military effort would be mired in stalemates and, that negotiations might prove to be a way the u. S. Can excrete itself from the quagmire of vietnam. Supposedly kronkites interpretation, his assessment, was so powerful and moving that it swung Public Opinion dramatically against the court. In fact, Public Opinion had been swinging against the war for months before the crank a statement at the end of 50. That is a media driven that. The hero of journalists, the greatest political scandal of watergate. This is another example of a media driven myth. Its very interesting to consider what principles at the Washington Post have said about their newspapers role in the scandal. They have tended to not embrace the dominant narrative. Catherine graham said in the 25th anniversary of the watergate breakin of june 1972, there were remarks at the former museum that sometimes people would accuse us of bringing down a president , which of course we didnt do. The processes that led to nixons resignation were constitutional. Ben bradley, the executive editor of the post, shown here with Catherine Graham. He said this at about the same time, 1997, the 25th anniversary. It must be remembered that the post didnt get nixon, nixon got nixon. He was referring to secret tapes, audiotapes, that work should nixon had made of many of his conversations in the white house. Well take a look at that in a moment the important thing is that the. Post didnt get the post. Woodward himself had this to say. If perhaps, an earthier terms, but emphatic. Ane ombudsman whom i mentioned a moment ago had this to say in 2005. That ultimately it was not the post. The press did not bring down nixon,. Michael getler, the holmes men had this to say about this in thousand and five. Ultimately, it was not the post, but the fbi, a Congress Acting in bipartisan fashion and the courts that brought down the Nixon Administration. Indeed, to roll up a scandal with the complexity and demensions of watergate requires the coordinated efforts of special prosecutors, federal judges, fbi, both houses of congress, the supreme court, the justice department. Even then, even then, nixon wouldve survived the scandal. He wouldve walked. If not for the secret tapes that he had made of many of his conversations from 1971 to 1973. Inside the white house, and in his office, his Old Executive Office building, nixon had a surreptitious taping system put in place. The existence of those tapes was disclosed in july of 1973 during hearings of a Senate Select committee on watergate. This was not, this was a Pivotal Moment in the investigation of watergate. If you had the president s words as to what he was saying at the time in his meetings with his top aides, white House Counsel and others, then we have a pretty good idea of whats going on in watergate inside the white house. Woodward and bernstein did not disclose the existence of those tapes. Indeed, they were pivotal. They were pivotal to understanding the complexity and the coverup of the seminal crime of watergate, the breakin on june of 1972. No tapes, nixon walks. Pretty simple. This is an interpretation endorsed by some of the leading stories of the watergate scandal, including Stanley Cutler who wrote one of the finest books about watergate in history. No tapes, nixon walks. So, why does this persist . Why does the hero of journalism interpretation of watergate persist in light of the posts principles dismissing this. Sometimes in pretty crew terms. Why does it exist when its clear that there was a lot of forces at work against nixon in the watergate investigation . Why does it live on . Its a convenient shorthand for explaining the scandal. Okay, watergate was a big time scandal. Woodward and bernstein from the post investigated, they uncovered the misconduct and the corrupt practices of the Nixon Administration forcing the president to resign. Its a very neat and tidy shorthand for explaining the scandal. That is emblematic of most Media Methods. Neat, tidy, simplistic. The z explanation for a much broader and more complex turn of events. Related to this factor is it is an interpretation that avoids the complexities of watergate. Even at the time, even when it was unraveling, in 1973 in 1974, people had a time time keeping all the actor straight. Who was who was dean . Who are all these players . Where they fit in . Over the years, over the passage of 50 years, it has become even more difficult to keep it all straight. Who was who in watergate and where did they fit in . This story, the heroic journalists interpretation, cuts through all of that. Cuts through all the other actors and focuses on the journalists and their work. Theyre saying that their dog reporting brought us down. Another factor in explaining why this journalist interpretation moves on as because it was reassuring to contemporary journalists. Journalists who are going through tough times, and have been going through tough times for more than 25 years. It tells them that this interpretation of watergate, the gravest political scandal of the 20th century, tells them that journalist can be decisive factors, decisive force, in american society, in american politics. These are three of the factors why this trope, this interpretation lives on. What has propelled this myth . What has given its sustenance in light for nearly 50 years . The book woodward and bernstein brought out in june of 1974 called all the president s men, was a bestseller. It was a runaway bestseller. Its reported to tell the story of the most devastating political detective story of the century. How two young Washington Post reporters, who brilliant Investigative Journalism smashed the watergate scandal wide open. Thats when the dust jacket. From the book all the president s men. The book was a great success. It offered a journalists brief for the watergate scandal as the scandal was reaching its culmination with Richard Nixon and his resignation. The book comes out in june of74, two months later nixon has resigned. It is a centerpiece of the conversation. The book is a conversation centerpiece as watergate is ending. Even more popular than the book is the cinematic version of all this and the president s men. The cinematic version. It came out in april of 1976 to rave reviews. To raver views. It was a critical and commercial success, all the president s men. Far more people have seen the movie that have read the book. Then the third factor, perhaps as important as the other two, is the years longest game about the identity of super secret source that woodward had. A highlevel government source with whom he met periodically in 1972 and 1973. The source had the code name, deep throat. Who was deep throat . This became a parlor game, a fun parlor game in effect in d. C. For many years. Lets take a look at each of these factors very briefly. All the president s men was a worn away success. It was serializing playboy before it came out in june of 74. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive for the book. It is never been out of print. Its gone through man editions over the years, soft cover, as well as hardcover. The movie starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in the lead roles of woodward and bernstein respectively. These actors were at the top of their career, the peak of their career in the mid 1970s. The film focused on the journalists, even more so than the book. All the president s men, the movie, was a mediacentric assessment of watergate. It it excluded, even denigrated the work of other agencies and entities in uncovering the scandal. The focus on redford and kaufman, would wooden bernstein, health to embed the idea that watergate was unraveled by these heroic young journalists. The movie was up for eight academy awards. It won four. It did not win best picture. Rocky, sylvester stallones, rocky, was the best picture in the year that the watergate, for all the president d men in competition. Then, the throat. The book and the movie introduce the world to a shadowy character, a highlevel government stores, who sometimes met woodward in a garage and rosalind. The Roslyn Center of arlington, just across the river. There is a plaque established there to commemorate this historic meeting. The book gave hints, but no more so than that, to the deep throats identity. The sudden motion a yearslong guessing game of who it is. In washington, this is secret. Who is this guy . For a secret in washington to have been intact for as long as this is quite remarkable. Its quite something. Deep throat barred its name from a couple of sources. He met woodward on what he called deep background. Deep throat would give him some information but he couldnt quote the source, it was all supposedly on the background. At the time, or just before, a controversial pornographic film came out with the title, the deep throat. Anyway, the name deep throat, the source, the identity, was a fascinating topic in washington. Over the years, a variety of sources, a variety of names were offered up as two potential candidates. Who is deep throat . Take a look at this list. Henry kissinger, the u. S. Secretary of state. L patrick gray, the former acting director of the fbi. Diane sawyer, who worked for a while before going to Network Television in the nixon white house. John dean, who was nixons counsel. Pat buchanan, a nixon aide who later ran for president three times. He sought and failed to win the republican nomination. Alexander hague who was nixons chief of staff later in the watergate period. Ron ziglar, he was a press secretary, the one who referred to watergate as a third rate burglary. These were all among the candidates, these and many more were identified as likely sources. Likely to have been deep throat. There were college courses, one of them at the university of illinois, that spence semesters digging through the clues and all the president s men to try to figure out who the most likely source was. One of these efforts identified pat buchanan, the arch conservative republican who seemed on his face to be quite unlikely to have been deep throat, but since he was a native of washington or, had lived in washington for many years, he knew some of the ends announce that were discussed in the book. So this college, it seems like he was the most likely candidate. A very common and popular interpretation was that deep throat was not a single individual. Deep throat was a composite of a number of different sources. It was a literary device to project an intriguing character but pulling from a different range of individuals, a variety of sources, a composite. A literary device. For a long time i believe this was the case too. There could not have been a single deep throat, there were probably several of them that were melded into a single character. One of the investigative teams of the Los Angeles Times also publicly felt that this was the likely explanation for deep throats identity. They were following watergate as well, and they knew that some of the information in the post was publishing had to come from different sources. It couldnt have been from the same source. Those reporters of the l. A. Times thought the composite was a literary device. To propel the book, to give it a mysterious central character, and also to have in the movie this injury gain guy who kind of looks around in garages. Mark felt was deep throat. He was the former number two at the fbi. He leads information to woodward. He never met bernstein until very late in his life. He met and leaked information to woodward because he wanted to become the number one guy at the fbi. The fbi director had died in may of 1972, a month before, for six weeks before the watergate scandals seminal crime. The sudden motion and intense rivalry to become who is going to become the fbi director. There was an acting director, earl patrick gray, fold was number two. He wanted to become number one he. Was leaking information to undercut his rival inside the fbi. Inside the fbi. This is an interpretation that is persuasive in my view. Its the subject of a book length treatment called leak. Mark fault, self disclosed is the throat in the year 2005 when he was in his 90s. Encouraged by his family to do so late in his life. You know, if you look closely at the hairline, there is some, maybe there was a hunter clue in a movie in 1976 that the deep throw character played, played exclusively well, was actually kind of mark felt. Mark felts name surfaced frequently and the speculation of who was deep throat. He always denied it. He said, on one occasion, i have been deep throat, i wouldve done a better. He threw people off the trail. Woodward helped to, there was a little bit of circumvention on woodwards part. He said at one point, deep throat was knots an Intelligence Community and washington. The fbi, most people would like into the Intelligence Community in washington d. C. It would be unfair to disregard some of the most important stories of the Washington Post produced during the watergate scandal. They were the first to identify a security official, security coordinator for the committee to reelect the president has been among the watergate burglars. Its a great linkage for those burglars, those third rate burglary and to nixons Reelection Campaign. They linked contributions to nixons Reelection Campaign and reagan. Some of the money, the contributions made to the campaign, were used to help fund the breakdown of Democratic National headquarters. Another important linkage. Then they tied the likes of Johnny Mitchell who was a former attorney general, a former u. S. Attorney general, and the nixon campaign, a campaign manager, to operations against the democrats. Important stories. All of these stories were published in the first four months or so of the watergate scandal. By october 1972 the, city editor of the Washington Post realize that we were essentially out of gas with watergate. There were other watergate stories, but these are the principal stories that the post published in the first months of the scandals unfolding. These and others. For those reports, the post won the Public Service award given by the pulitzer committee. The most prestigious pulitzer in journalism. But its also important to keep in mind that there are important stories that the post did not break. They did not expose the coverup of the crimes of watergate. They said he was too high, too high up to expose. The payment of hush money to watergate burglars to keep them quiet, to buy their silence, was a story broken first by the New York Times, not by the Washington Post. And the existence of nixons taping system, the incriminating audiotapes that nixon had made. Woodward, in his book, said that he had a lead on this taping system but then bradley encouraged them, no, it doesnt only all that great of a story so, they didnt pursue it. A few days later, it came out that there was the taping system. Also, not often discussed in the dominant narrative watergate, are the ethical lapses of woodward and bernstein. They encourage federal grand jurors here in watergate testimony, in secret, to violate their oaths and discussed watergate testimony with them. Even a approaching a federal grand juror and asking that juror to shed the oath of secrecy can be a crime. Bernstein himself and, this is described in the book, book for and obtained private telephone records. Whoops. And they also ratted out an fbi source. Heres a clip from a program in 2014. They incorrectly reported that and told the grand jury they control the funding that paid for all that espionage and sabotage. I assume youre referring to the testimony in front of the grand jury on the Washington Post this morning. Our answer to that is an unequivocal no. Mr. Sloan did not implicate harlem in that testimony at all. This must be the moment when you throw up. Worse. We thought we might have to quit. How many sources did you have that story . We had two or three, and we had some logic. Of course logic isnt a source, and thats one of the lessons that we learned. It was painful. So painful that they rounded out an fbi agent that they thought had lied to them about him. They went to his boss. It was the worst of journalism. Look, we accused the number one aides of the president s of the United States and the attribution of this was wrong. We were desperate young men. So you blew a source, he deliberately blew a source. Yes. Whats the ethics of that . Probably not terribly good. So why arent these lapses more often recognized. Why arent they more dominant for the central character of water gates. Why arent we more talking about this. Maybe because the ethical [inaudible] the public didnt necessarily see them as bad as the watergate scandal. They were willing to accept this was, like, dirty journalism. They were willing to accept that over the fact that the watergate scandal happened in the first place. This would not be great reporting on any other story, but it is because it wasnt over a massive schedule already that it kind of didnt look that bad to the public, i guess. It was kind of more insignificant in the broader context. It got dismissed because people were too preoccupied with the actual story than how it came to the. Do you think it is possible that these are more [inaudible] details that get in the way of keeping it straight . There is just so much about watergate. Even this little clip showed a lot of sprawl and complexity. Do you think thats a factor in this . There are too many things happening. I think getting into the journalistic ethics of it all is complicating things too much for a lot of the public who are not focused on journalistic ethics. It just gets too complicated. Okay, fair enough. I agree. It might be too much of an academic pursuit and less of a popular understanding. Going off of that, i dont think many people even probably knew about the ethics of it or how they were getting their sources about it. I think what people were more concerned with was the story. A lot of times, if you are personal rights are not being violated, i dont think that you would i wont say wouldnt care, but i dont think you pay as much attention to it. Because of the nature of the story, it was so big and people just wanted to get the information. They cared less about how it was coming. Fair enough. Do you think today, though, that this kind of journalistic misconduct would be signal flagged and brought our attention . The media landscape is so diverse. When it is on a scale this big like with a president ial coverup or Something Like that, i think you might have some critics who might say, hey, the journalistic ethics are not great here. They are not making the best choices. I think most people, again, will probably be too concerned with the actual story they are getting to really care about how they are getting it. In other words, this was kind of a sideshow, in a way . The story becomes really big. I think people care less about how they get it unless it affects a lot of people. If it affects the people that they are investigating, the people want to know about it. They are concerned with peoples rights be respected. Very good. Isabelle . I would just say that people were so willing to accept this media driven myth as something sensationalized. I think that these two men or the figureheads for bringing this to justice, bringing president nixon down. I think that when you are so focused on the individuals in a heroic sense like that, people are more willing to say, like, oh, well, the ends justify the means, you know . Its fine that they had to do this. It doesnt really matter. Look at all of the good they did. I think that peoples scales are shifted. Do you think that would be in play today . Do you think people would say, okay, the greater outcome is more important here than the i hate to say the minutiae, but the minor details. I think people still get people love to believe a good story. I think that, again, like, people could there might be a few critics, but definitely not enough to sort of sway the court of Public Opinion in terms of what these men did or, you know, or the journalists were able to do. It wasnt entirely ethical. This is a david and goliath kind of story. That has long been a popular narrative. It has long been a popular narrative to pursue. Any other thoughts as to why this, these ethical lapses are not more central to the narrative, that they dont allow the dominant narrative more prominently . Kyle . I support the idea that this is very much a david and goliath story. I think that is something that we always crave to feed into. Its something we like to see. We are able to take down a large figureheads a small reporters. I think this goes back to the idea of the declaration of independence and that we have the power to make a change in our government and overthrow it. I think we all want to feed into this narrative and support it even if there are ethics in question. We dont always see government officials or fbi agents as humans. I think the roles and the titles can dehumanize these people. Interesting. Marissa, final thoughts on this . Im also thinking, like, at the time, who was going to admit this, you know . This kind of story segment, they did things that were unethical. It makes all journalists look bad. In that sense, no journalist is going to put it on their front page. The New York Times is going to be like, the Washington Post was unethical in this. That reflects badly on newspapers and media as a whole. They dont want to do that, especially when everyone is praising them at this time. They dont want to ruin it. No one is really going to say it that loudly in the media, which means, like, their audience, the people arent really going to take it in. Fair enough. Some of this was known at the time. Some of it was contemporaneous with the unfolding scandals that reached their climax in 1974. The book describes how bernstein sought and obtained telephone records. The book also describes how they approached federal grand jurors and got into deep trouble doing so. The book is kind of candid about some of these encounters. Its not unknown at the time. Im wondering why it wouldnt have been seized by book critics are saying, oh, theres a lot more to the story that we have understood already. Why do you think that would have been overlooked largely . In the sense that it is not buried but it is in a book that a lot of people read, but its not right in front of you, you know . Its not in front of you in the way that it would be if it were in a newspaper or something. It doesnt make it to the public consciousness the way the headlines that were happening at the time did. All right, fair enough, fair enough. Thanks, folks. So, some takeaways here the heroic journalist interpretation of watergate is erroneous. The contributions of woodward and bernstein, while perhaps highprofile, overall, in a broad sweep of the trajectory of the watergate scandal, were modest at best. They were not decisive. They were not decisive forces and factors in bringing down other forces and factors. We have mentioned them a couple of times. Federal investigators, special prosecutors, the u. S. Supreme court, investigative panels of both houses of congress those forces and factors toys are far more recognition for unraveling and understanding and getting comprehension of the watergate scandal for the public. In the end, we should probably take woodward at his word. He has said that the methodology of our role in watergate has gone to the point of absurdity. So dingell handedly totally absurd. Washington post, he went on to say that he had some part in the chain of events that are described in our book that were part of a very long and complicated process. Why dont we take woodward at his word on this . Hey, okay, he says the dominant narrative is focused on why dont we take him at his word . Why doesnt this perforated the dominant narrative a watergate . Why doesnt this of more of an impact . Luke, go ahead, please. You have already discussed this, so i dont know if it is worth repeating a whole lot, but it is not as glamorizeing of an answer to reshare, for teachers to describe in class. Its more burning then woodward took down these giants. To say, oh, well, here are these complex ways in which this worked, it requires more depth. It requires more investigation on the part of people. To simplify it to its most basic parts, to dig into it and try to figure out its ins and outs, all the minute details. Fair enough. So, why does it live on . Why does this mid live on . What are the reasons why . I will offer three reasons. Before i do, any thoughts, any thought as to why they smith lives on . I think people just really like heroes. We see it all the time with other new stories that are less explosive. With the covid pandemic, we saw i mean, half the country was warshiping Anthony Fauci for like a year. People really like having someone to attach to and someone to portray as their hero. I think it comes from being taught fantasy as a child. I legitimately just think that they wanted a guy who was like, this is our man. It just happened to be woodward and bernstein. Very good. Fair enough. Other thought as to why these are the factors here, at this heroic element . Luke . Im not sure what it was like at the time, but i know now that it plays into the trope that nixon was this villain. If you have a hero, you have to have a villain. Nixon has become somewhat of this villainous character. For sure, for sure. Thats a good point indeed. He does have that. He does project that. He did at the time even though he was reelected by an overwhelming margin in 1972. This villainous character of Richard Nixons wellknown to the general populist. One of the reasons is that it is easy to retell. Its easy to remember this trope. Its easy to retell. Its also a celebration of journalists. Eaton mentioned the hero element. In a way, this relates to the celebration of journalists. We cant overlook the impact of the cinema, of cinemas impact the end of this impression of the midinto the popular consciousness. It was a factor for sure. Woodward and bernstein are now prominent on the National Media stage. Which of these four factors, in your view, is perhaps most persuasive . If you had to say, okay, one of the four is most i would say it is easy to remember and retail. I think a lot of times, unless you are really into politics or journalism or communications, you are probably not going back and rereading all of the details of the watergate scandal. You will hear about what is most easy to remember. That would be my argument for it. I think thats just what happens. People arent getting accurate information. Nicely said. To summarize here is a driving factor. Other likely reasons why . Which of the four . Isabelle . Im going to go with number three. I would probably say that the movie did the most work to probably convince popular consciousness that this was a thing that really happened and you should believe it. I think cinema more than even we were talking about earlier, more than headlines on a newspaper not everyone reads the same newspapers and not everyone is going to really care. A movie that was well received, well made, well acted that came out right when this was at the forefront of everyones political consciousness probably did a lot of legwork to convince people that this was something that you should believe in and care about. Cinema as myth propellant, in other words. Its true. Movies can present appeal, and delicious tails which are focused on individual agency. It is easy to understand. Its entertaining. It doesnt go on forever. The Washington Post called all the president s men american journalisms greatest two hours and 16 minutes on film. Its not hard to see how cinema has had that effect of embedding the medium is into the popular consciousness. Yeah, thats a good point. One other arguments could be made for these four factors . Weve heard good arguments for a fantasy. Are there others that we can emphasize . Does anyone else want to argue for another interpretation . Well, i dont want to argue for the other one. Im going to agree with isabelle, but on simpler terms. I believe option c. The movie, i think it influences all four of the options. All the president s math, whether it is the book, the movie, or both, they are much easier to remember and retail. A teacher can throw on the movie and eat up a class rather than go into a week of dialing into the complexities of federal entities, investigations, ethical decisions, et cetera. Its certainly a celebration of journalists if you see it. Finally, i would argue that a reason woodward and bernstein are so prominent other than their reporting chops and being so important at the post is due to a movie and book that kind of glamorized them and made them into celebrities. I think option c affect all of these. They are all reasons that the myths lives on. Its hard to argue that the movie doesnt distill watergate into a very compact, digestible package. Very important interpretation. Thanks. Other thoughts about which of the four factors is perhaps most significant . Its easy for a teacher to slap it on and show it in the classroom. All the president s men, the movie, has been used as a how to guide for investigative reporting. There are some elements of Investigative Journalism you can watch that movie and pick up tips from it. How about this factor . The illusory truth effect, the illusory truth of act. Does this play a role in solidifying and perpetuating the myth . What you might ask is the illusory truth effect . Thats a great phrase that you can use on friends and acquaintances. What you just said sounds to me like the illusory truth effect. You can impress them to no end. This is an inclination to believe inaccuracy if the inaccuracy is repeated over and over, if we hear it a lot. If we encounter this often enough, this repetition leads to a sense of validity. It doesnt make it accurate. It doesnt make it true. But it makes it seem authentic, the illusory truth effect. Anyone want to try the illusory truth effect on the dominant the fact of watergate . I feel like this story of woodward and bernstein as the heroes of the watergate story and the guys responsible for taking down nixon and a lot of those falsehoods that we talked about earlier those things got repeated in every u. S. History class i have ever taken. Is that right . I have a history minor. Ive taken an extensive amount of u. S. History classes. Every time you talk about the presidency, every time you talk about nixon, watergate, woodward and bernstein are the three things you have to know. When it comes to your a push test, that has always been how it is. That has always been the story that i have been told in Public School growing up. They always said that. I just always believed it because they kept saying it. Im sure im not the only person in that position or that was all we got taught. Fair enough. I think you are right. You are probably not the only person in that position. The illusory truth effect has had that effect, that repetition of an inaccuracy or a misinterpretation. It takes on a certain validity. So, a few final thoughts as we begin to wrap up. I would argue that to explain watergate through the lens, through the prism of the heroic journalists is to a bridge and to misunderstand this scandal, this sweeping scandal of unmatched proportion in u. S. History and to indulge in a particularly beguiling and tenacious media driven myth. So what . Lets return to one of our favorite questions this semester okay, what does it tell us . Why should we be concerned . If we cant answer the so what question, it lends itself and you open yourself up to subsidiary questions. Who cares and why bother . So how do we answer so what in this context . Why does it matter to debunk this myth . Why . Thoughts, comments . The focus on the journalists in this whole story takes away from what happened with the scandal in the first place in the sense that i think most people, most everyday people i, think they couldnt even explain to you the details of why watergate was even bad. It was like, they did something wrong. I dont think people can really explain it. They are more like, oh, its a story of these great journalists and they are not paying attention to what nixon or anyone did wrong as and point. That is the problem. The attention is taken away from the wrongdoings that have happened, which means that they could happen again because nobody really took in or cared to the first time that it happened. They were distracted by this other story. Fair point, fair point. Other thoughts . Other thoughts and answering the so what question . Fernanda, thank you. I would say to not always think that less is more. So that it might be worth our while to go into the complexities of watergate to actually understand what we consider the biggest political scandal in our country. So maybe, that is a lesson we can take away from this. Interesting point. Interesting. To marissas point, i would argue that the myth is a distortion of history. In misinterpret the dynamics that combine to bring down a corrupt presidency. It glosses over that and focuses on media. Its a mediacentric interpretation. And that, in the watergate context, is a distortion. And related to that, it overstates the medias capacity to exert decisive influences. We tend to believe the news media are powerful agents, and they are, but that power tends to be episodic. Its not constant. Its not always there. Its not a linear effect, cause and effect kind of equation here. And another reason why is this myth, as even mentioned a few moments ago, it essentially has worked its way into textbooks, into American News rooms, into reporting about this scandal. Its not hard to find, not hard to come across. Any additions to the three points here . Anyone want to add another bullet point as to why it matters to debunk this . Luke, please. I think one potential point would be that at a time like now where trust and faith in the federal government is really, really low, it is important to point out when the government succeeds and cleansing itself of corruption, when it succeeds in doing what it is supposed to do in terms of uncovering these horrible deeds. Good point, yeah. In this case, you could argue that government stepped up and, if not cleansed itself, exposed the wrongdoing to the extent that the top guy of clearly committing obstruction of justice had to leave, had to leave the office. Thats a fair point. How about another so whats this interpretation, this dominant narrative defies logic, defies logic . Because journalists dont have subpoena power. They are not compelling testimony as federal investigators, as the fbi, as house and Senate Investigative panels can do when they compel testimony, issue subpoenas. Logically, does this dominant narrative hold together . I would argue that it does not. In closing, folks, i want to mention that there are spinoff myths from the dominant narrative of watergate. The heroic journalist myth is not the only media driven myth related to this topic. There are what i call subsidiary myths. And one of the most tenacious subsidiary myths is that the film, all the president s men, which glamorizes journalists, which was mediacentric and focused on the exploits of two young reporters played by two actors at the peak of their careers, it projected such a glamour, such a golden glow around journalism that journalism Education Programs at colleges and universities surged in the aftermath of watergate, in the aftermath of all the president s men. Everyone supposedly wanted to be like woodward and bernstein. Everybody wanted a piece of this golden glow that enveloped or seemed to envelop journalism and journalism education in the 1970s. It has been claimed that Journalism Schools became overcrowded with the students aspiring to be the next woodward and bernstein, and woodward and bernstein have been referred to as the muckraking duo that launched 1 million journalism majors. Sounds logical, cause and effect. There is no evidence to support such claims. Research over the years has demonstrated that this is indeed a myth, a subsidiary myth of watergate. Enrollments in journalism programs in the United States did not surge because of woodward, bernstein, watergate and all the president s men. The surge in enrollments was true, but it had begun years earlier, it had begun years earlier. It predated watergate. Beginning in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s, the surge was driven in large measure, not exclusively, but by female students and during journalism and Communication Programs at u. S. Colleges and universities. Another factor was that journalism was then seen as an applied field of study, that you could get a job after graduating from journalism in college. Data compiled and reported in the 1980s found that the boom in journalism enrollments was well underway five years before the watergate break in in 1972. Max mccombs, a communication scholar, a veteran communication scholar and author of a study on this topic, has written that it is infrequently and wrongly asserted that investigative reporting by woodward and bernstein provided a popular role model for students that led to a boom in Journalism School enrollments. The data, he wrote, revealed that enrollments had already doubled between 1976 and 1972. So, the tenacity of this subsidiary myth is easily understood. Like the dominant narrative, it persists because it seems logical. It could have happened. Too good, too obvious not to be true. That can be said for many media driven myths. They are too good not to be true. Thank you very much for your attention, folks. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.