Encounter. During our class today. Bob woodward and Carl Bernstein these are these were reporters for the Washington Post the lead reporters on the watergate scandal for the post. And they teamed up in 1972 and were together through the scandal in 1974. Together they wrote two books about the watergate scandal. Catherine graham is another name that will encounter she was the posts publisher. During the watergate period the post then was a familyowned newspaper. And she was publisher from 1969 to 1979. She backed the watergate investigation. Sometimes in the face of government pressure Catherine Graham died in 2001 ben bradley is another name will encounter today. He was the posts executive editor at the time. That is the top newsroom official. Of a newspaper ben bradley broadly oversaw the watergate coverage of his newspaper he was executive editor from 1968 to 1991 a period that roughly corn caused coincided with. The posts rise to the top ranks of american journalism bradley died in 2014 another name well hear is that of Michael GettlerMichael Gettler. He was the posts ombudsman or inhouse media critic. From 2000 to 2005 and during his tenure gittler has a very interesting and important reminders to make about the post and the watergate scandal. Gaettler became the first ombudsman later on at pbs. He excelled in this role of inhouse critic of ombudsman. As well see. The scandal that was watergate was sprawling in dimensions. It was a scandal of unprecedented proportion at the highest levels of the federal government. To roll up a scandal of the complexity and breadth of watergate required the concerted if not always can coordinated effort of both houses of Congress Investigative panels from both houses of Congress Federal investigators special prosecutors fbi agents and ultimately the Us Supreme Court it is safe to say. That exposing and unraveling the watergate scandal. Was not 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. The Washington Post but over the years but over the years that has become the dominant narrative of watergate. That woodward and bernstein of the Washington Post through their reporting brought down exposed the misconduct in the Nixon Administration and brought down his presidency. It is a narrative that is woven into popular understanding of the watergate scandal. And it pops up often. It pops up often. So why has this become the dominant narrative of watergate . Why is it that so many people . Under misunderstand americas gravest political scandal lets take a look at thoseho and r and questions. During this presentation nixon in august 1974 became the first us 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 i said the dominant narrative of watergate has become that woodward and bernstein for the post brought down nixons presidency through their dogged reporting. And why is this a medium myth . Well, first of all. What is a media myth anyway . A media myth 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 dissolves as apocryphal. Or wildly exaggerated a media myth and what are some examples of media myths . In my book getting it wrong i lay out. 10 or 12 different media myths including this one about William Randolph hearst the publisher of the new york journal the late 19th century who supposedly vowed to furnish the war with spain at the end of the 19th century. That a newspaper mogul was powerful enough to bring the country into a war that it otherwise would not have fought. That is a media myth. Another medium myth has to do with Walter Cronkite of cbs news and his onair assessment about the war in vietnam. At the end of february 1968 he said then that the us military effort in vietnam was mired in stalemate. And that negotiations might prove to be the way the us could extricate itself. From the quagmire of vietnam supposedly cronkites interpretation his assessment was so powerful and so moving that it swung Public Opinion dramatically against the war. In fact Public Opinion had been swinging against the war for months before the cronkite program. At the end of february 19 that too is a media driven myth. And then the heroic journalist myth of watergate. The countrys gravest political scandal certainly of the 20th century. 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. And they have tended not to embrace. The dominant narrative Catherine Graham said at the 25th anniversary. Of the watergate breakin in june of 1972 she said in remarks at the former museum. That sometimes people accuse us of bringing down a president , which of course we didnt do. A processes that cause nixons resignation were constitutional ben bradley the executive editor of the post shown here with Catherine Graham said it about the same time in 1997 as a 25th anniversary of the breakin. It must be remembered. He said that the post didnt get nixon nixon got nixon. He was referring to secret tapes audio tapes that Richard Nixon had made of many of his conversations at the white house. And well take a look at that in a moment. But the important thing is is that bradleys saying the post didnt get nixon. Woodward himself had this to say if perhaps an earlier terms but emphatic. The press did not bring down nixon. And michael gattler the ombudsman whom i mentioned a moment ago had this to say in 2005. That 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 the complexity and dimension of watergate required the concerted if not coordinated efforts of special prosecutors. Federal judges fbi both houses of congress the Supreme Court the justice and even then even then. Nixon would have survived the scandal he would have 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 in the Old Executive Office building nixon had a surreptitious taping system put in place. The existence of those tapes was disclosed in july 1973 during hearings of a Senate Select committee on watergate. This was not this is a Pivotal Moment in the investigation in watergate because if you had the president s words as to what he was saying at the time in his meetings with top aides his his white House Counsel and others then we have a pretty good idea of whats going on in the watergate. Inside the white house Woodward Bernstein did not disclose the existence of those tapes. And indeed they were pivotal they were pivotal to understanding the complexity and the coverup. Of the seminal crime of watergate the breakin in june of 1972. No tapes nixon walks Pretty Simple and this is a interpretation endorsed by some of the leading historians of the watergate scandal including stanley cutler. Who wrote one of the finest books about watergate and its history no tapes nixon walks. So why does this persist . Why does the heroic journalist interpretation of watergate persist in light of . The posts principles dismissing this notion sometimes in pretty crude terms why does it exist when its pretty clear that there was a lot of forces a raid against Richard Nixon . In the watergate investigation why does it live on . Its a convenient shorthand for explaining the scandal. Okay. Watergate was a bigtime scandal. Woodward and bernstein for the post investigated they uncovered the misconduct in the corrupt practices of the Nixon Administration forcing the president to resign its a very neat and tidy shorthand. For explaining the scandal and that is emblematic of most media myths neat tidy simplistic. And easy explanation for a much broader more complex. Turn of events. Related to this factor is that 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 hard time keeping all the actors straight. Who was haldeman who was ehrlichman who was dean . Who were these these players . And where did they fit in . And over the years over the passage of 50 years. It has become even more difficult. To keep it all straight who was who and watergate and where do they fit in . This story the heroic journalist interpretation cuts through all that complexity cuts through all the other actors and focuses on the journalists and their work saying that their dogged reporting brought nixon. And another factor and explaining why this heroic journalist interpretation lives on is that it is 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 this. Interpretation of watergate the gravest political scandal certainly of the 20th century tells them that journalists can be decisive factors decisive forces 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 life . For nearly 50 years the book woodward and bernstein brought out in june of 1974 called all the president s men. Was the best seller . Was a runaway bestseller. And it purported to tell the story of the most devastating political detective story of the century. How two young Washington Post reporters whose brilliant Investigative Journalism smashed the watergate scandal wide open. Thats from the dust jacket. Of all the president s men the book was a Great Success and it offered. A journalists brief for the watergate scandal as the scandal was reaching its culmination. With Richard Nixons resignation again, the book comes out in june 74. Two months later nixon has resigned so it is a centerpiece of the conversation. The book is a centerpiece of the conversation. As watergate is hitting its climax. And even more popular than the book. Is the cinematic version of all the president s men . The cinematic version it came out in april of 1976. To rave reviews to rave reviews it was a critical and commercial success. All the president s men and far more people have seen the movie. Then ive read the book. Then the third factor perhaps is important is the other two was this years long guessing game . About the identity of a super secret source that woodward had a highlevel government source with whom he met periodically in 1972 in 1973. The source had the code name deep throat. Who was deep throat . Became a parlor game an unending parlor game in effect in washington, dc. For many years so lets take a look at each of these factors very briefly. All the president s been. Runaway success. It was serialized in playboy before it came out in june of 1974. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive for the book. And it has never been out of print. Its gone through many additions over the years soft cover as well as hard cover. 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 that peak of their career in the mid1970s. And the film focused on the journalist even more so than the book. All the president s men the movie was a media centric assessment of watergate and it excluded and sometimes even denigrated the work of other agencies and entities in uncovering the scandal. Focus on redford and Hoffman Woodward and bernstein helped 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 water that all the president s men was in competition. And then deep throat the book and the movie introduced the world to this shadowy character this highlevel government source who sometimes met woodward in a garage and roslyn . The rosalind section of arlington just across the river. And there has been a plaque established there to commemorate this. Historic meetings if you will the book gave hints but no more than that as to deep throats identity. And this set in motion as i said years long guessing game is to who it is because in washington the coin of the realm is secrets or exposing secrets . Who is this guy . And for a secret in washington to have been intact for as long as this one. Is quite remarkable, its quite something. Deep throat borrowed its name from a couple of sources one that he met woodward on what they called deep background in other words. Deep throat would give him some information, but he couldnt quote the source it was all on supposedly deep background. At the time or just before a controversial pornographic film came out with the title deep throat anyway, the name deepthroat the source has identity. Was a fascinating topic in washington and over the years a variety of sources. A variety of names were offered up as to potential candidates. Who is deep throat . Take a look at this list. Henry kissinger the us secretary of state el 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 council in the early days of the watergate scandal pat buchanan, who is a nixon aid who later ran for president three times . Sticking and failing to win the republican nomination for presidency Alexander Hague who was nixons chief of staff later in the watergate period ron ziegler, he was the press secretary. The one who mentioned who referred to watergate famously 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. In fact, there were college courses. One of them at the university of illinois that spent semesters. Digging through the tips and clues and hints and all the president s been to try to figure out. Who the most likely source was . And one of these efforts identified pat buchanan an 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 many years he knew some of the ins and outs that were discussed in the book. And to this college class. It seemed 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 different a variety of sources a composite a literary device for a long time, i believe this was the case, too. That there could not have been a single deep throat, but there was probably several that were melded into a single character. One of the investigative teams for the Los Angeles Times also publicly felt that this was the likely explanation for deep throats identity because they were following watergate as well and they knew some of the information that post was publishing was coming had to come from different sources. It couldnt have been from the same source. Those reporters to the la times thought composite thought this is a literary device. To propel the book to give it a mysterious central character and also to have in the movie this intriguing. Guy who sort of lurks in garages mark felt was deep throat. He was the former number two at the fbi. And he leaked 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 or six weeks before the watergate scandals seminal crime the breakin. The Democratic National headquarters and that said in motion an intense rivalry to become who was going to become the fbi director. There was an acting director el patrick gray. Felt was number two. He wanted to become number one. So he was leaking information to undercut. His rivals inside the fbi. Inside the fbi this is a an interpretation that is persuasive in my view and its the subject of of a book length treatment called leak mark felt selfdisclosed is deep throat in the year 2005 when he was in his 90s. Encouraged by his family to do so leighton his life. So, you know if you look closely at the hairline here. There is some so maybe there was a hint or clue in the movie the 1976 movie. That the deepthroat character played by how holbert played exquisitely well by how holbrook its actually kind of mark felt mark felts name surfaced frequently in the speculation about who is deep throat. He always denied it. He said i want occasion. If i had been deepthroat, i i would have done it better. He threw people off the trail and woodward helped too. There was a little bit of circumvention on woodwards part he said at one point that deep throat was not in the Intelligence Community in washington. The fbi most people would link into the Intelligence Community in washington, dc it would be unfair to disregard some of the most important stories that the Washington Post produced during the watergate scandal. They were the first to identify. A security official the security coordinator for the committee to reelect the president as being among the watergate burglars. Great linkage from those burglars from this third rate burglary into nixons Reelection Campaign they linked contributions to nixons Reelection Campaign. And the breakin that some of the money contributions made to the campaign were used to help fund the breakin of Democratic National headquarters. Another important linkage and then they tied the likes of John Mitchell who was a former attorney general. Former us attorney general and top Nixon Campaign a Campaign Manager to operations against the democrats important stories important stories all of these stories were published in the first four months or so of the watergate scandal and by october 1972 the city editor of the Washington Post. Realize that we were essentially out of gas on watergate. There were other watergate stories, but these were the principal stories that the post had published. In the first months of the scandals unfolding these and others. And for those for those reports the post one the Public Service award. Given by the Pulitzer Committee the most prestigious pulitzer in journalism but its also important to keep in mind. There are important stories that the post did not break. They did not expose the coverup of the crimes of watergate. They said it 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 and the incriminating audio tapes. That nixon had made woodward in his book said that he had a lead. He and bernstein had a lead on this taping system, but ben bradley encouraged them. Well doesnt sound like all that great of a story so they didnt pursue it and a few days later. It came out that that there was this taping system. Also not often discussed in the dominant narrative of watergate are the ethical lapses . Of woodward and bernstein they encourage federal grand jurors hearing watergate testimony. In secret to violate their oaths and discuss watergate testimony with them. Even approaching a federal grand juror and asking that grand juror to shed the oath of secrecy can be a crime. Bernstein himself and this is described in the book. Look for and obtained private telephone records of individuals. Whoops and they also ratted out an fbi source. Heres a clip from a program. In 2014. They incorrectly reported that hugh sloan had told a grand jury white house chief of staff. Hr holderman controlled the fun which paid for all that espionage and sabotage. I assume youre referring to the testimony for the grand jury is reported in Washington Post this morning. Correct our answer that is an unequivocally an equivocal. No, we did not mr. Sloan did not implicate mr. Holman 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 for that story . We had two or three and we had some logic and of course logic is in the source, and thats one of the lessons that we learned and it was it was painful. So painful that they ratted out an fbi agent. They thought had lied to them about haldeman. They went to his boss. It was the worst of journalism. Look wed accused the number one aid to the president of the United States and the attribution was wrong. We were desperate young men. So you blew a source deliberately blew a source. Yes. Whats the ethics of that . Probably not terribly good. So why arent these ethical lapses . More often recognized why arent they more . Central to the dominant narrative of watergate. What do you think is an explanation as to why we dont hear more about this kind of stuff. Maybe because the ethical boxes like werent i guess the public didnt necessarily see them like as bad as like the watergate scandal itself, so they were willing to accept like, okay. This is like dirty journalism, but like they were willing to accept that over the fact that like the watergate scandal happened in the first place like this wouldnt be great reporting on any other story, but its because it was over a massive scandal already that it like kind of didnt look that bad to the public i guess so it was kind of more insignificant and the broader context dismissed because people were too preoccupied with the actual story than how the story came to be. Do you think that its possible too that these are more of those details that get in the way of keeping it straight . Theres just so much about watergate even this little clip. Showed a lot of sprawl and a lot of complexity. Do you think thats a factor . In this eden that like theres just too many things happening that i think getting into like the journalistic ethics of it. All is like complicating things too much for a lot of the the public who like isnt focused on journalistic ethics like it just gets too complicated. Okay fair enough, i agree. It may be more of an academic pursuit and less of a sort of popular. Understanding, okay. Kind of burden off of that. I dont think many people even probably like knew about the ethics of it or like how they were getting their sources or about it. Like i think what people were more concerned with the story and i think a lot of times like if your own personal rights arent like being violated then i dont think you would not i wont say not care, but i dont think you pay as much attention to it and then especially because of the nature of the story. It was like so big i think people just wanted to get the information and they cared less about like how it was coming. Fair enough you think today though do you think today that this kind of journalistic misconduct would be signaled flagged and brought to the attention. I mean the media landscape is so i feel like diverse when its on a scale this big like with like a president ial coverup or like with like Something Like that. I think i think you might have some critics who might like say like, hey the journalistic ethics arent really great here. Theyre not making the best choices, but i think most people again would probably be too consumed with the actual story that theyre getting to really care about how theyre getting it. No because this is kind of a side show in a way. Whats the story becomes like really big then i think people care less about how they get it unless it affects a lot of people but i feel like if it affects the people that theyre investigating the story about that people care like want to know about then i think they are less concerned with that persons rights being respected very good fair enough isabel yeah, i would just say that like people were so willing to accept this mediadriven myth as something sensationalized and i think like these two men were sort of the figureheads for bringing this to justice like bringing president nixon down that i think like when youre so focused on the individuals in a heroic sense like that. People are more willing to say like, oh, well the end justify the means, you know, like its fine that they had to do this or it doesnt really matter because look at all the good they did like, i think people scales are just shifted. Do you think that would be in play today, do you think it would say . Okay the greater outcome is more important here than the hate the same same minutia, but the minor details. Comparatively speaking. Still get caught up in like the heroic tales people. Love to believe a good story and i think 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 like what these men did or you know what the journalists were able to do even if it wasnt entirely ethical . And youre right. This is a you know, a david and goliath kind of story and and you know that has long been a popular narrative long been a popular narrative to pursue is to why . This these ethical lapses are not more central to the dominant narrative or that they dont cloud the dominant narrative a little more prominent way. Kyle im like support the idea that this is a very much a david and goliaths story. I think thats something that people are always crave to feed into its something we like to see that as small reporters like were able to take down like large figureheads in the government and i think this like kind of goes back to the idea of like the declaration of independence and like that we have the power to like make a change in our government and overthrow it so i think we all want to feed into this narrative and supportive even if theres ethics being in question because i think we dont always see government officials or like fbi agents as humans. I think like the roles in the titles can dehumanize these people interesting thanks, marissa final thought on this question. Like at the time like whos going to admit this, you know like this kind of story like saying that they did things that were unethical like makes all journalists look bad and in that sense, no journalist is gonna put it on their front page, you know, theyre like New York Times is gonna be like the Washington Post was completely unethical in this because thats gonna reflect badly on. Newspapers and media as a whole and they dont want to do that, especially when everybodys praising them at this time, like they dont want to ruin it. So nobodys really gonna say it that loudly in the media which means like their audience like the people arent really gonna take it and fair enough and some of this was known at the time so it was contemporaneous with the unfolding scandals that reached its climax in 1974. The book describes how bernstein sought and obtained private telephone records. The book also describes how they approached federal grand jurors and got into deep trouble doing so and so the book is kind of candid about some of these encounters. So its not unknown at the time. Im wondering why i wouldnt have been seized upon even by book critics is saying oh, you know, theres a lot more to this story than weve. Understood already why do you think that would have been . Overlooked largely i think in the sense that like its not buried but like its in a book that like a lot of people read but its not like right in front of you, you know in the way that like it would be if it was like on the front of a newspaper or something so it doesnt really make the public consciousness the way that like the headlines that were happening at the time did all right, fair enough fair enough good, thanks folks. So some takeaways here. The heroic journalist interpretation of watergate is erroneous. The contributions of woodward and bernstein while perhaps high profile overall in the broad sweep of the trajectory of the watergate scandal were modest at best. Not decisive they were not decisive forces and factors in bringing down nixon other forces and factors. Weve mentioned them a couple of times. Federal investigators special prosecutors the Us Supreme Court investigative panels of both houses of congress those forces and factors deserve far more recognition for unraveling for understanding for getting a comprehension of the watergate scandal. For the public and i think in the end we should probably take woodward at his word. He is said that the mythologizing of our role in watergate has gone to the point of absurdity. Where journalists right that i singlehandedly brought down Richard Nixon. Totally absurd the Washington Post he wanted to say had some part in a 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 . Say hey. Okay. He says the dominant narrative is bogus. Why dont we take him in this . Why doesnt this puncture . The dominant narrative of watergate what do you suppose . This hasnt had more impact. Loop go ahead please. Think one reason and youve already discussed this. I dont know if its worth repeating a whole lot but its a its not as glamorizing of an answer to reshare for teachers to describe in class. Its its more neat and tighter to say. Bernstein and woodward took down these giants right . So to say oh, well, heres these complex ways in which this worked is a lot, you know requires more depth that requires more investigation on the part of people resharing the story and teaching people so to simplify it. To its like most basic parts. Its easier to reshare and keep you know propelling this myth. Than to dig into it and try to figure out the ins and outs and all the all the many details fair enough fair enough why does this live on why does this myth live on what do you think are the reasons why . Ill offer three reasons. But before i do any thoughts any thoughts as to why this myth lives on. Even please. I think people just really like heroes. I mean, i think we see it all the time like with other news stories that maybe like i guess less explosive but like with the covid pandemic we saw like i mean half the country was like worshiping Anthony Fauci for like a year, like people just really like having someone to like attached to and like someone to portray as their hero and i think it comes from like being taught fantasy as a child. But like i legitimately just think that they really just wanted a guy who they were like, this is our man like he did this for us and they just so happened to be woodward and bernstein. Very good fair enough other thoughts as to why what are some of the factors here . Heroic element for sure luke im not sure what it was like at the time, but i know now. Plays into the trope that nixon was as villain. So if you have a hero you have to have a villain and nixon has become somewhat of this like villainous character over the years for sure. Thats a good point indeed. He does have that. He does project that. I mean it did at the time he did at the time even though he was reelected by overwhelming margins in 1972. This villain is character richard. Nixon was well known to the american population. Again one of the reasons i would argue is that its easy to retell. Its easy to remember this trope and its easy to retell. Its also a celebration of journalists. Eden mentioned the hero element and in a way thats this relates to the celebration of journalists. We cant overlook the impact of cinema. Cinemas impact in this impressing the myth into the popular consciousness all the president s been the movie was a factor for sure. And woodward and bernstein now in their 70s are still 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 persuasive and this is it and why . Here mine would easy, i would say its easy to remember and retell i think a lot of times. Like who unless youre like really into politics or even like journalism or communications . Youre probably not going back and rereading all the details of the watergate scandal, so youll hear about it and youll hear what is most easy to remember by other people to tell so youll get second that secondhand dollars. So i think thats probably that would be my argument for it because i think thats just what happens the most so people arent getting accurate information. Nicely said the summarization here is is a driving factor. Other likely reasons which of the four isabel im actually gonna go with number three and 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 because i think cinema more than even like marissa was talking about earlier like even more than like headlines on a newspaper because not everyone reads the same newspapers or is going to really care about specific journalists, but a movie that was well received. Well made well acted that came out right when this was sort of like at the forefront of everyones political consciousness probably did a lot of the legwork to convince people that this was something that you should believe in and care about so cinema as myth propellant. In other words and its true that movies can present very appealing delicious tales that are focused on individual agency all the president s men certainly was and its easy to understand and its entertaining and sort of. Doesnt go on forever the Washington Post one time called all the president s men american journalisms greatest two hours and 16 minutes on on film and so its not hard to see. How cinema. Has had that effect of reinforcing and embedding the media myth into the popular consciousness. So yeah, its thats a a good point. What other . Arguments could be made for these four factors. Weve heard two good arguments for a and c are there others. That we can emphasize here. Does anyone else want to . Argue for another interpretation well i dont want to argue for another one. I want to agree with isabel but on simpler terms because i believe see, so it all the president s men the movie. I think it influences a b c andy. So all the president s men, whether its the book the movie both. Theyre 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 diving into the complexities of federal entities investigations. Ethical decisions, etc. For b. All the president s been certainly its a celebration of journalists and you see it in film and then finally i would argue that a reason woodward and bernstein are still prominent other than you know. Reporting chops and being so important at the post is due to a movie that you know in book that kind of glamorize them and made them into somewhat a celebrities. So i think see if affects all of these and i agree with you that abc and d are all reasons that the myth lives on very good. Yeah. And its its hard to argue that you movie doesnt. Distill watergate into a very compact and digestible package. So yeah, very important interpretation there luke. Thanks. Other thoughts about which of the four factors is perhaps most significant is most dominant and explaining the dominant narrative and you know the movie you said, you know, its easy for a for teacher to slap it on and show in a class all the president s been the movie has been used as a howto guide for investigative reporting and theres some elements of Investigative Journalism that you can watch that movie and pick up. Tips from how about this factor . The illusory truth effects the illusory truth effect does this play a role . In solidifying and perpetuating the myth and what you might ask is the illusory truth effect. Thats a great phrase you can use on friends and acquaintances. What you just said sounds like to me like the illusory truth effect. An impress them to no end. This is an inclination to believe in inaccuracy if that inaccuracy is repeated over and over if we we hear it a lot. If we encounter this often enough this test 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 to link the illusory truth effect to the dominant narrative of watergate. Even i feel like this story of like woodward and bernstein as like the heroes of the watergate story and like the guys responsible for taking down nixon and a lot of those like kind of falsehoods that we talked about earlier like those things got repeated in every us history class ive ever taken that ive covered the 1970s. Like i have a history minor. Ive taken an extensive amount of us history classes every time you talk about the presidency every time you talk about nixon watergate woodward and bernstein. Those are like the three things that you have to know when it comes like your a test and in your senior year of high school, like thats just always been how it is. And thats always been the story at least that ive been told in like Public Public school growing up like they just always said that so i just always believed it because they just kept saying it so i think it probably does have that kind of effect because im sure im not the only person in that position where that was all we got taught. Fair enough and i think youre right. Youre probably not the only person in that position the illusory truth effect. Having had that effect the repetition. Of an inaccuracy or misinterpreted account takes on a certain validity so a few final thoughts as we begin to wrap up. I argue that to explain watergate through the lens through the prism of the heroic journalists is to a bridge and indeed to misunderstand this scandal this sweeping scandal unmatched proportion in us history and to indulge in a particularly beguiling and tenacious mediadriven myth. So what . Lets return to one of our favorite questions this semester. Okay. So what does it tell us . So why should we . Be concerned. And 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 regard in this context . Why does it matter to debunk this myth . Why . Thats comments, marissa. Cant get away but like the focus on the journalists and this whole story takes away from what happened like with the scandal in the first place in the sense that i think most people like most everyday people i couldnt even explain to you like the details of like why water it was even bad, you know, it was like, oh they did something wrong, but i dont think most people can really explain it and that way that theyre theyre more like, oh is the story of these great journalists and theyre not even paying attention to like what nixon or anybody even did wrong at that point which is like the so what like thats the problem is that the attention is taken away from like the wrongdoings that have happened which means that they could happen again because nobody really took in or cared the first time that it happened because they were distracted by this other story fair point other thoughts in answering the so what question . Fernanda, thank you. Id say that maybe like not to 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 thats a lesson we can take away from this. Okay point. To marissas point i would argue that the myth is a distortion of history. And at misinterprets the dynamics that really combine to down a corrupt presidency. It glasses over that. 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 exert decisive influences. We tend to believe that 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 that this myth . Has eden mentioned a few moments ago . Essentially has worked its way into textbooks. America newsrooms to reporting about the scandal it is. If not everywhere not hard to find. Not far not hard to come across. Any additions to the three points here anyone want to add a another bullet point . As to why it matters to debunk this clue please i think one potential. Point would be that at a time like now. Where trust and faith in federal government is like really really low. Its important to point out when the government kind of succeeds and you know clean cleansing itself of corruption when it succeeds and doing what its supposed to do in terms of, you know, uncovering these horrible deeds. Good point. Yeah, i mean in this case you can argue that government stepped up and if not cleansed itself it exposed the wrongdoing to the extent that. The top guy clearly committing obstruction of justice had to leave had to leave the office. In an unprecedented fash fair point how about another so what that . This interpretation this dominant narrative. Defies logic defies logic because journalists dont have subpoena power. Theyre not compelling testimony as federal investigators as the fbi. As house and Senate Investigative panels can do compel testimony. Issue subpoenas so 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 glamorized journalists which was media centric and focused on the exploits of two young reporters played by two actors at peak of their career. Projected such a glamor such a golden glow around journalism that journalism Education Programs colleges and universities surged in the aftermath of watergate in the aftermath of all the president s men. Everybody 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 students aspiring to be the next woodward and bernstein. And woodward and bernstein have been referred to as the muck raking duo. That launched a million journalism majors sounds logical cause and effect there is no evidence to support such claims. Research over the years have 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 Woodward Bernstein watergate and all the president s men. This surgeon enrollment was true, but it had begun years earlier. It had begun years earlier. It predated watergate. And beginning in late 1960s and into the early 1970s this surge was driven in large measure not exclusively, but in large measure. By female students entering journalism and communication programs. At us colleges and universities another factor was that journalism then was seen as an applied. Fuel to study that you could get a job after graduating by majoring in journalism and college. Data compiled and reported in the 1980s found that the boom in journalism enrollments was well underway five years before the watergate breakin in 1972. Max mccombs a communication scholar a veteran communication scholar and author of a study on this topic has written that it is in frequently 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. Reveal that enrollments had already doubled. Between 1976 and 1972 so the tenacity of this subsidiary myth is easily understood like the dominant narrative. Like the dominant narrative it exists because in persists because it seems logical. Could have happened. Too good too obvious not to be true. Which could be said . For many mediadriven myths too good not to be true. Thanks very much for your attention folks with that. We are adjourned. Thank you. Afternoon everyone, welcome to the Washington Post for this event. Years ago today, breaking someplace at the Democratic NationalCommittee Headquarters in the water. Its two miles from here. White House Press Secretary at the time referred to the incident as nothing more than quote a great burglary. That may have been out history would have recorded it but for the recording of