Inside the Watergate Scandal: The Debate on the Role of the Media

It was the Washington Post that ran the story which caught the attention of the nation on August 9, 1974. The headline of the story was a simple one: “Nixon Resigns.” This short headline was one of the most significant in the history of the United States, and the hard-nosed journalists who played such a large role in uncovering the scandal were given a large portion of the credit for Nixon’s resignation. Over the past three decades, however, there has been a lot of debate in regards to how prominent of a role the media actually played in the revelation of the Watergate scandal. Many argue that, while it did significantly pave the way for investigative journalism of the future, muckraking played a less compelling role in the persuasion of the country’s leader to step down from his post as president than we are led to believe.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in journalism has likely either heard of the Watergate scandal or been taught that the brave reporters behind the stories were heroic and primarily responsible for its uncovering. However, there are others who proclaim that the media didn’t play as large of a role as they have been credited with.

The actions leading to the culmination of the Watergate scandal are widely known. During the wee hours of the night, five men donning professional attire were caught in the Watergate office complex at the Democratic Party headquarters with covert surveillance devices in hand. Under the direct orchestration of President Nixon, these men were part of an elaborate espionage operation in an attempt to gain an advantage over the Democratic party in the upcoming election. As a result, a massive cover-up followed which ultimately led to the arrest of more than 70 high-ranking government officials. In fact, had it not been for a pardon from successor Gerald Ford, Nixon himself would have become the first President to be convicted of felonious activity in the White House. Historian Stanely Kutler aptly summarized the impact the Watergate exposition had on the public when he said, “it consumed and convulsed the nation andtested the constitutional and political system as it had not been tested since the Civil War” (76).

Watergate’s unveiling created an immediate spotlight on the two Washington Post reporters who had uncovered the scandal, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They were credited with paving the way for the rest of the country’s media in uncovering the issue as a substantial moral matter that directly violated every voter. In the book written by Paul Johnson entitled Modern Times: A History of the World From the 1920’s to the Year 2000, he likens the scandal to a “witch hunt” that ultimately gave Woodward and Bernstein credit for the end result which was a more informed public and an increased respect for investigative journalism.

This hype only heightened upon the release of a book written by the two famous reporters entitled All the President’s Men. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford further highlighted the efforts of Woodward and Bernstein as they portrayed the men in the Hollywood blockbuster that soon followed. Despite all of the fanfare, it is argued that, while investigative reporting did indeed increase national attention to the misdeeds of those in power, the understanding that there was conspiracy underway was commonly known. Rather than being a result of clever investigative reporting, some suggest that intricately timed leaks are to credit for the sensational stories that dominated the headlines (Kutler).

Once those five men were arrested, the FBI embarked on an investigation, and their work led them to President Nixon. Part of the debate states that the prosecution was already in the process of building a strong case against Nixon as Woodward and Bernstein used the leaked information they’d received to minimize what was being done behind the scenes to present a story sure to sell papers(Archer).

The public attributed their knowledge directly to the reporting being done by journalists like Woodward and Bernstein. Meanwhile, those behind the actual investigation of wrongdoing were primarily responsible for keeping key information guarded from public knowledge in order to present a viable legal case. Reporters, on the other hand, were driven to deliver a compelling story to the public. The possibility of corruption in such high levels of government would not only capture large-scale attention, but it would also sell papers and help publications like the Washington Post succeed in their primary goal of making money. Either way, it can be difficult to pinpoint the primary catalyst in Nixon’s ultimate resignation. After all, investigators are naturally going to be reluctant in reporting that an increase in media coverage is what prompted them to act accordingly (Archer).

This coercion has been a primary argument of those who believe muckraking was the reason behind the Watergate exposition. Woodward himself reported that John Sirica, the judge who presided over the Watergate scandal, told him directly that it was because of the investigative reporting that he dedicated so much attention to the case. Woodward said, “Judges don’t decide to get tough in a vacuum. Senators don’t decide to investigate in a vacuum. The process wasn’t uncovering the abuses. It’s that simple” (Lewis).

Regardless of whether the pressure from the media influenced the way the justice system handled the case, others argue the fact that the damning tape recordings of President Nixon existed. Seymour Glazner, prosecutor in the Watergate case, argues that it was Nixon’s failure to destroy this evidence that primarily led to his imminent demise as leader of the free world. It is Gladner’s opinion that an official representative of the FBI leaked crucial information at the Washington office (Author).

Another important point to consider is the fact that extensive coverage didn’t begin until after Congress began publically releasing relevant facts relating to Watergate. According to Jackson, prior to this exposure, only 15 of the 430 reporters in all of Washington were dedicated to working on this case, representing an insignificant three percent of the stories being covered. This fact coupled with the threats being made by the Nixon administration invalidates claims that the media encouraged the legal system to act on these allegations. Conversely, only after information began to be officially released from Congress did the media place emphasis on coverage.

Kutler made another relevant observation about who deserves credit for Nixon’s exposure. While the general public relied primarily on the press for their information regarding the case, investigative reporters were doing just that: investigating the case. This means they were exploring other leads as the case was receiving attention from the FBI, congressional investigators, hard-nosed prosecutors and the judicial system. While the contributions made by these other entities may not have been as apparent, there was a great deal of work “behind the scenes” that did not make the headlines.

Even if the press was given a bit of extra credit for the ultimate demise of former President Nixon, one fact is indisputable. In the 30 years following the Watergate scandal, the relationship between the media and the White House has forever been altered. Since this infamous scandal, the briefings have been conducted differently, and government officials are more mindful of what a powerful tool the press is and how it can significantly impact their political careers both positively and negatively (Felstein).

All things considered, it is clear that there are valid arguments being made on both side of the debate regarding the role the media played in uncovering Nixon’s actions. Significant credit has been given to Bernstein and Woodward for the uncovering of this monumental scandal; however, there is also evidence to suggest that they could have received tips from sources within the FBI that led them to delve into the issue.

Regardless if the level of acknowledgement given to the Washington Post was warranted in the actual uncovering of the Watergate scandal, both sides of the debate can agree on one thing. When it comes to spreading information quickly in order to induce a change, whether big or small, the media is a highly powerful tool that people in power must consider before they act, and the Watergate media coverage set the tone for investigative journalism of the future.

Works Cited

Archer, Jules. Watergate: America In Crisis. New York:

Harpercollins, 1975. Print.

Author, Unknown. "The Watergate Story." The Washington Post.

N.p., 8 June 2006. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Feldstein, Mark. (2004). Watergate Revisited. American

Journalism Review.

Jackson, Brooks. "A Watergate Legacy: More Public Skepticism,

Ambivalence." CNN. N.p., 13 June 1997.

Johnson, Paul. Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the

Year 2000. New York: Harper & Row. Print.

Kutler, Stanley I. Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard