we'll consider the so what question. why debunking this myth? matters along the way we'll have some time for q&a. here are a few names that will 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 family-owned 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 we'll hear is that of michael gettler michael gettler. he was the post's ombudsman or in-house 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 in-house critic of ombudsman. as we'll 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 america's gravest political scandal let's take a look at those and related 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 it's a vast. and sprawling scandal as i said the dominant narrative of watergate has become that woodward and bernstein for the post brought down nixon's 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 well-known. 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 on-air 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 cronkite's 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 country's gravest political scandal certainly of the 20th century. another example of a media driven myth it's very interesting to consider what principles at the washington post have said about their newspaper's role in the scandal. and they have tended not to embrace. the dominant narrative catherine graham said at the 25th anniversary. of the watergate break-in 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 didn't do. a processes that cause nixon's 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 break-in. it must be remembered. he said that the post didn't 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 we'll take a look at that in a moment. but the important thing is is that bradley's saying the post didn't 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 what's 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 cover-up. of the seminal crime of watergate the break-in 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 it's pretty clear that there was a lot of forces a raid against richard nixon? in the watergate investigation why does it live on? it's a convenient shorthand for explaining the scandal. okay. watergate was a big-time 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 it's 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 best-seller. 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. that's from the dust jacket. of all the president's men the book was a great success and it offered. a journalist's brief for the watergate scandal as the scandal was reaching its culmination. with richard nixon's 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 i've read the book. then the third factor perhaps is important is the other two was this year's long guessing game? about the identity of a super secret source that woodward had a high-level 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 let's 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. it's 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 mid-1970s. and the film focused on the journalist even more so than the book. all the presidents 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 stallone's 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 high-level 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, it's 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 couldn't 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 nixon's 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 nixon's 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 couldn't 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 break-in. 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 it's the subject of of a book length treatment called leak mark felt self-disclosed 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 it's actually kind of mark felt mark felt's 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 woodward's 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 re-elect the president as being among the watergate burglars. great linkage from those burglars from this third rate burglary into nixon's reelection campaign they linked contributions to nixon's reelection campaign. and the break-in that some of the money contributions made to the campaign were used to help fund the break-in 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 it's also important to keep in mind. there are important stories that the post did not break. they did not expose the cover-up 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 nixon's 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 doesn't sound like all that great of a story so they didn't 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