essay

Asses the effects of press attention on Watergate

By Tom Lee

Watergate is seen as a key piece of investigative journalism in modern times, it is an event in American history which included a presidential scandal. I will be looking at how the press played a key role in developing this incident and how the press actually affected Watergate's eventual conclusion.

It started in 1972, the Washington Post wrote a story involving five ex-CIA employee's who were arrested for trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward report on a followup as the GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, and former attorny general John Mitchell denies any link between the Nixon re-election campaign and the burglary.

Soon after on August 1st 1972, a $25,000 cashier's check ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar which was originally earmarked for the Nixon campaign. On the 1st October the FBI stepped in and established that the Watergate break-in was founded through a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage which was linked to the Nixon re-election campaign. However, November 7th saw Nixon manage to win a landslide victory in the polls and was re-elected as President.

Yet on January 30th 1973 Watergate again returned to the news, the Washington Post reported that former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted of burglary, wiretapping and conspiracy, another five men pleaded guilty to the Watergate break-in. On April 30th, three of Nixon's top White House staff resign over the alledged scandal, and another is fired. These included Attorny General Richard Kleindienst, H.R. Haldeman and Jogn Ehrlichman.

As 1973 moved on more of the scandal broke amongst the press. June 3rd, John Dean claimed he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon atleast 35 times. A key story was covered by the press as a former presidental appointments secretary revealed to the press that Nixon had recorded all his telephone calls and conversations in his offices since 1971. Which lead to Nixon ordering the disconnection of the White House tapping system but then refused to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the prosecutor in July.

On October 20th, the Washington Post then reported on an event labbelled as "Saturday Night Massacre" which involved President Nixon firing Archibald Cox and abolishing the office of the special prosecutor against him. A memorable speech from Nixon was televised and wrote about in the Washington Post on November 17th, as he declared: "I'm not a crook," which was an attempt to show his innocence in the Watergate case. To increase speculation against Nixon, on December 7th the White House was unable to explain an 18½-minute gap in one of the tapes, Alexander Haig was quoted by the Washington Post as saying: "Some sinister force," erased the segment. 

In 1974 the White House released more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee but the committee insisted that the tapes be turned over themselves. In July the supreme court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations. Richard Nixon became the first U.S. President to resign, the scandal lead to his demise. Even though the press had been reporting stories which were given to them by a mysterious informant using the alias "Deep Throat." 

Carl Bernstein and BoB Woodward followed information given to them from this informant who eventually became known to the world as Mark Felt who was the former number two official at the FBI. He had leaked them key information and a trail to follow during the entire scandal, he was the source of information in the Watergate cover-up and many journalists question whether the incident was actually a key piece of investigative journalism or not. Although, the important fact is that Mark Felt needed the information to become public knowledge through the press, the Washington Post in particular developed the story until its conclusion. 

I will be using the hypothesis that, "Press attention on Watergate had a major effect on the incidents development." I aim to study evidence from the 1970's as part of my methodolgy, reports from the Washington Post and editorials from the same newspaper in a chronological order to investigate how much of an effect the press really had on the Watergate cover-up. 

Firstly, an editorial from the Washington Post written in 1973 said, "Plainly, the President would like to turn the whole ugly matter over to the courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of specific criminal violations should be." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) This quote shows that the press believe that the courts should settle the matter, unknowing that the President was actually involved in the scandal. Which shows a reliance on the authority figure in America's society this figure is seen as the role model and leader. The connotations of the quote lead to the way in which the press may be trying to seperate the President from the accusations against his campaign, manipulating public opinion to keep their respective leader "clear" of convictions and maintaing the purity of the presidential post.

However, the same editorial wrote: "An equally important test has been whether these men met certain minimum standards of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much invoked by the President." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) This time the same article is questionning the quality of the men involved in the original break-in, these were all people who the president hand picked as his aides. The way the editorial implies that the President did not judge these people properly could lead public opinion against him by questionning his judgement.

Even further, the editorial begins to use phraseology which includes the public and is trying to imply that the writer knows exactly what the public want from certain positions of power by saying: "When one speaks about public confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are entitled to something more than confidence that their highest public officials do not break the law; they are also entitled to know that these officials do not lie and cheat and corrupt the institutions of government." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) Here the editorial could of been used as a way to determine the public interest story, it includes the public's needs and desires from the officials in charge of the country. The way in which it uses the words "lie, cheat, corrupt" are all negative terms used to imply the officials involved in the scandal are thieves or spies as an assumption. All words associated with criminals, not presidential aides which leads me to believe that the editorial is trying to get the public on the writer's side by trying to write on their behalf, including himself as one of them. It also is asking a question about the mystery itself, and it does not explicitly show any sign of knowing the potential outcome of the writing. Which means that Mark Felt's influence was progressing in stages rather than telling the press everything at once. 

After determining the editorials position on the event, it begins to state its own bias as it states: "But it is precisely in this area of earning (or restoring) public trust that Mr. Nixon's remedies fall short." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) The way in which faith was originally given to the presidential position in the same editorial earlier, it begins to question the actual figure in charge. "Remedies fall short" shows that the public's faith in Nixon's solutions wasn't strong, and so the effect of this would be that the Washington Post is trying to portray a sense of false hope, whilst urging the public against the man in charge of the White House. The knock-on effect may be that the story would itself develop against the president from this point on, it appears as though a contradiction between Nixon and the presidential position is present, the public would be strongly against a president who was corrupt himself. Another effect this attention caused would be doubt over whether or not Nixon was suitable for his post, it shows a clear false belief in the man in charge.

The Washington Post's own opinion can be seen throughout this editorial as negative against Nixon, and as an effect of this the public would be fully aware of the President's wrong doings. Yet the way in which it is written, it does not appear to know what is going to happen next, there is a clear sign of concern but not any indication to the way in which the whole scandal links to the president. This shows that the press would be writing based on public interest rather than a vendetta against a certain person, the effect this has is that the public may be enticed onto the press' side as the press are appearing to write for the general society at the time as a whole. 

Yet so far the press attention on Watergate did have an effect on its outcome, as the public began to want to know more about the mystery and how far the president was entangled in the cover-up. It meant developing stories would be written to include more information on the proceedings. The way the press handle the affair is from a public interest angle allowing a developing story to be written. Especially with the Washington Post being leaked information from Mark Felt it meant that the informant wanted the information to be published, almost as though it should be published because it effected everybody in the country. 

The press began to show some signs of knowing where the whole scandal coverage would lead, Nixon's demise. By saying: "The dramatic news of the dismantling of the White House command staff that served Mr. Nixon through his first four years in the presidency was the most devastating impact that the Watergate scandal has yet made on the administration." (Editorial: 3 Top Nixon Aides, Kleindienst Out; President Accepts Full Responsibility; Richardson Will Conduct New Probe, Laurence Stern and Haynes Johnson, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) Therefore, it is showing that the effect "yet made" or so far, would lead to more problems for the president. The term "devastating" identifies exactly how much of an effect the press has made on Watergate. This analysis shows that the editorial is trying to use words which would emphasize the scale of how negative the press coverage has been towards Watergate. A term like "Dismantling" shows how a structure has been slowly taken apart through press coverage, supporting my hypothesis even though the ultimate outcome wasnt achieved so rapidly. The press may of known what would happen, as the sense of mistrust in the President was being portrayed by them would leave the public with little choice but to follow the information given to them, as the President had not been cleared from the scandal itself.

To further this, a news story published by the Washington Post confronted the speech Nixon gave in 1973 declaring "I'm not a crook." A reporter followed Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal by covering a televised question and answer case by the president. It states "In an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors, Mr. Nixon was tense and sometimes misspoke" (By Carroll Kilpatrick, Sunday, November 18, 1973; Page A01) As this statement is based on personal opinion from the actual event itself, it would give the effect that the reader would question the way in which the president was nervous, and why he was nervous. It also would effect how the rest of the article would be written, as it shows doubt over the president's recollection of key events, which would of lead to him being misspoke. 

To follow onto this, the newspaper covered a speech given by Nixon which lead to him taking responsibility for the scandal itself. An editorial from the same writer states: "The President's address was both a somber confession of failure and an emotional appeal for trust in him and in the office." (Editorial:Nixon Pledges No Whitewash On Watergate, Carroll Kilpatrick, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) The writer is showing emotion in the way it seeks sympathy for the president after seeing Nixon's speech to the country, showing human interest through humanity's hopefulness in society over people in positions of power. The way it confirms the failure would have an effect that would cause more information to be revealed by the press, showing that the failure would want to be uncovered. I believe that the effect of emotion being portrayed here was to try and sympathize with Nixon, it is trying to imply that he is only human. But at the same time, the previous editorial assumed that the position should be filled by someone who is pure, and perhaps in some ways above normal human mistakes. Which evidently Nixon was not. 

Another key quote shows that the effect that the press had was massive. In terms of how there coverage effected Nixon directly, and how the follow-on stories about Watergate meant that public faith in the president was failing. It says: "He almost plaintively asked for confidence in himself." (Editorial:Nixon Pledges No Whitewash On Watergate, Carroll Kilpatrick, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) This quote in particular shows how the press know they are effecting the president. The issue of confidence in the leader seemed to be fading at the time through press coverage about Watergate, this meant that the effect press attention had on the public was causing unrest whether or not the president in particular was right for his job. 

This editorial is mainly derived of quotes from a press conferance Nixon gave, but it appears to show sympathy towards him. This would affect the public's previous interpretations against Nixon because it is showing that Nixon is "one of them" in a manner of speaking, through human error it classes the president as a member of normal society. However, the press attention also claims that the whole scandal causes a lack of confidence in the president. This effect would need to be turned around as it states that trust was being asked for by him, showing that the press attention has actually caused damage. 

In conclusion, I believe that my hypothesis is argued for well. As the press attention clearly shows an impact on the public, the way events happened and were followed upon by the press lead to a lack of faith being shown in Nixon and his administration. The Watergate scandal lacked information which the investigative journalists followed up on, with editorials and stories urging for more information to be found. The trail of content was pathed out, as slowly more and more would be found. Now I feel that the press originally did not know exactly how far their own coverage would lead them to, and how big a scandal it actually was. 

Especially as the first editorial appears to show little remorse for the president but doesn't show any indication to events after it. The other articles however, seem to urge the public against the man in charge. They show more sign of knowing what will happen, but do not explicitly say it. The mere assumption that knew what would happen can suggest that the press attention wasn't a major player in the incidents development. But the fact that the press opinion was so heavily against Nixon it could lead to only one outcome, even with some sympathy being shown towards him. I feel my hypothesis is not entirely proven because the press seem to know that the president in question will not be able to re-gain the trust he lost through the mysteries initial impact. But I believe the downfall of Nixon can be claimed by the press to some extent as the attention may of been overlooked originally. 

Had it not been for the press the scandal may of not been covered at all, yet through investigative techniques the attention caused development in the story, which would lead to a massive leak of corruption in American politics. The press cannot be given full praise for it though as they had an informant leaking information, but the way in which Mark Felt himself needed the information to be written shows a reliance on the press to deliver the truth.