Midterm blog
Summary and chapter inclusion section
Many useful themes for journalist were seen throughout the film. One being the “Paul Williams Way”. One thing about this type of investigative journalism is that it tells journalist that they must run with stories based on if the effort put in to the investigation will yield at least one story from it.
Woodward and Bernstein had to constantly ask themselves if they would be able to get all the parts for a story, this was especially impacted by the secretive nature of almost every source they spoke to in the film. One part of this type of storyboarding technique that the film focuses on is to fill in the gaps of the story. It showed that both reporters had to make assumptions to fill in what the sources would not directly state, however they could not just rely on assumptions they had to make them true with factual evidence.
The evidence came from both primary and secondary sources. The film showed how finding primary sources with individuals going on record was harder to achieve. The reporters had to find those not directly involved, but close enough to know details. This type of evidence could also be seen in documentation form.
The scene of the two reporters going to find a library card could fall under the primary source category. Another record that was helpful for investigation was the list of all the employees working that the two reporters receive from their fellow female colleague.
In a political investigation such as Watergate, a whistleblower is bound to exist. The one character that I feel best exemplifies this is the character known as “deep throat”. He identifies in the anonymous category of whistleblowers, but still sticks his neck out to help the investigation. Another way he played the role is showing the ethical obligations of a reporter.
Woodward had to keep his name anonymous and stuck up to his editors that his source was factual. A questionable ethic in the film was the way the two reporters conducted their investigation was through baiting the source into revealing the truth. It’s not the most clean-cut journalism but doesn’t fall into unethical practices either.
What it does hinge on is a bluff. Had a source not fallen for the strategic play the two reporters would be back to where they started and to make matters worse, they told the source they had already confirmed a name. When that name doesn’t show in the paper the source has more grounds to not trust a reporter and they are lost as a repeat source to continue to go back to.
What the two reporters had to practice during this was how they collaborated with one another. Initially they weren’t keen on working together, but as the story progressed, they became in sync with one another and proved to make an excellent team. One of the scenes showed Bernstein editing Woodward’s work, while Woodward wasn’t happy about how Bernstein went about it he dropped his ego for the betterment of the article.
The editors played a big role in accounting or the stories. They grilled the two when a sufficient answer wasn’t given. As a journalist you need to be able to stand behind and back up your story.
The film also showed the collaboration a newsroom could have. Their fellow female reporter was instrumental in getting the employee documents. Another being when it came time to search phone books and old articles it showed a team effort.
With investigating a branch of the government, it can be tricky to find what you are looking for. Much of this story focused on the money. When the reporters were interviewing with sources that is one of the main things discussed. As official government budgets can have expenditures that are off budget getting a source to verify how much funds were being handed out was a key aspect to the story.
Reflection section
Being attached to a presidency was very important to history. In a reporting standpoint it helped to showcase how large an impact reporters have. Over 40 people were indicted due to the events and consequently the reporting on Watergate.
The obstacle that the reporters faced the most is the silence of the sources. Many were shown refusing to even speak or let the reporters in the door. Many things were researched with phone books to find information. The distinction from then and now is technology. A lot of this investigation was face to face and door to door. Today it’s mostly phone calls and emails.
Woodstein had many ways of keeping the story going when the trail got cold. The ways shown were when they visited the library in person, went back to deep throat, invited themselves in at women’s house, phone call confirmation, and resilience past failure. These all show a dedication to getting the story.
Get Stephanie Haydon’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Bernstein despite talking to the librarian about books being checked out was then given the run around after the librarian retracted her statement. This led the two reporters to investigate in person. However, they were shot down and had to go to someone in the library who’d be willing to work with them.
Woodward at one point went back to deep throat and instead of accepting vagueness he demanded that he needed more. This showed a risk as deep throat was already anonymous and was in control of the communication. However, it led to a more direct tip in the right direction.
Bernstein showed up late to a sources house. He was invited in by another resident, but as his main source denied any comment, he utilized a strategy of staying in the house as long as possible to get any information no matter how little. This also played into his coffee strategy as social norms wouldn’t suggest making a guest leave while they had a beverage served.
Bernstein at one point used a clever trick with a White House source over the phone. While he couldn’t get a direct quote, he was able to use a tactic to get confirmation. By counting and telling the source to stop him if the information was wrong proved to be a strategic move.
The resilience past failure can be seen in almost all the instances before. The most prevalent one is the ending of the movie. It shows that despite having a small failure towards the end of he film they continued writing and pressing the story for month and as time went on more people entered into guilty charges.
In the Post’s article “Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought” there were two sources used towards the beginning, Bob Haldeman and Henry Kissinger. They were introduced together and what was added to the story with their quotes was when written back to back it was like a conversation. It kept that section snappy and easy to bounce between two source talking on the same subject.
One of the sources used was Sam Ervin. What I liked most about his quote and how it added to the story was how imagery driven it was. Some quotes will come off as factual but Ervin’s felt poetic, this being near the end of the article added in making the story feel concluded nicely.
The film showed how there can be many types of editor/reporter relationships. One shown with the character Rosenfeld detailed how he was more hands on with the progression of the story in real time. He also showed the initial trust in Woodward despite being a fairly new reporter on this type of story.
The second type of editor type seen was with Bradlee. He was more updated on significant developments in the story as deadlines approached. It showed a conflict resolution when the entire newspaper was called out due to the reporters’ writings. Bradlee showed trust by standing by them through that.
Two things about reporting that I learned was the grey area from source and the responsibility on editors. By grey area from sources it can be seen by the sources responses. They wouldn’t give a direct answer either way. The movie helped to show me that in journalism a tough source isn’t a shut door, you just have to get creative.
The second thing is how editors take responsibility for their reporters. It hasn’t been apparent to me that my actions as a reporter could reflect on my editors. Editors have to not only trust their reporters but have accountability for their reporters.
Three character from the movie that played a meaningful role are deep throat, Bradlee, and Rosenfeld. Deep throat showed the importance of an anonymous source and what it means to have one. Reporters can not only rely on this type of sources information. They have to be able to use it as a starting point and fact check it.
For Bradlee, it showed how editors have to be stern with reporters. It also showed the responsibility they take for their reporters as well. That was important to see how the editor and reporter relationship works.
For Rosenfeld, it showed the importance of faith. Especially with Woodward being new and handling a large story. The journalism field is one that notably has gut instinct play a role and this character exemplified that.
I would ask the two, “was there ever a moment when you wanted to give up.” I would love to hear their response and how they combated that feeling if they had it.
“On my honor, I have watched “All the President’s Men” in its entirety.” — Stephanie Haydon.
Word count:1607
