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 it