Reflective Midterm Post

The “Paul Williams Way” of reporting is an 11-point procedure that can be followed in order to provide journalist with a way to verify they have thoroughly investigated their topic. In the Watergate reporting, we see this style of reporting because it all began with a question — What happened during the break in? And it was expounded upon through the investigative reporting.

The reporters utilize primary and secondary sources throughout their investigation. They rely upon the word of primary sources — individuals who had firsthand knowledge of the scandal ­– such as Deep Throat and other key figures. They did put a little bit of emphasis on secondary sources — attained through primary — such as phone records and other documents.

Whistleblowers and People Trails were the focal point of the Bernstein investigation. Deep Throat served as the main source that Woodstein used in their reporting in order to follow trials and connections.

The biggest question I had throughout the movie was: why did you believe your sources? Was it simply because multiple people corroborated stories? The gut instinct they were lying? There was not much verification of facts, but simply taking individuals for their words.

The two reporters — Woodward and Bernstein — collaborated on the investigation together. The biggest dilemma I felt they faced was, through a lack of communication, work on top of each other and end up finding out the same information, when only one person could have been following a lead while the other researched something different. Due to the lack of communication they both would think they got a break through, report to the other person, just to find out they already knew.

Within the movie, “All the Presidents Men,” we were shown the behind the scenes of the journalistic investigation into the break in of the Democratic party headquarters by the Nixon campaign. This was an important event not just because of the political history it has given America — the first president in history to step down from office– but also because of the way it paved investigated journalism.

The biggest dilemma the reporters and the paper it faced was the lack of named sources, thus bringing up questions of reliability. When you used unnamed sources, it is easy for them to “turn”, or named sources — who are viewed as more reliable — to refute the claims publicly. The reporters had to investigate the issue through word of mouth, vastly relying on hunches to follow a lead and hope it is truthful or not a dead end.

Today, reporters would record all interviews — even if not to quote them directly, but to prove they were on record about the material they were discussing — and would try and name a many sources as possible without giving that they would be unnamed unless requested. Woodstein kept the investigation going with one specific unnamed source that pushed them in the right direction throughout their investigation.

In the article written by Woodstein, “40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought” Woodstein use a variety of sources to conclude this article. His sources include Sen. Sam Ervin, who proposed the question that sparked the new article, press secretary Ronald Ziegler who tried to dismiss the burglary connections with the Nixon administration. They use different inner white house figures — like Thomas Charles Huston — which provides more detail to the impeachable act than just random unnamed sources.

After watching this movie, I learned multiple things about reporting. First, the trust we have to place on our sources. In cases of investigative reporting, it really relies on how much we trust the people we are receiving our information from. Because — as in this investigation — if they are lying or turn against us, our story may fall through. Second, I learned the importance of sharing information not only with your editor but with the reporter you may be sharing the story with. We found multiple times throughout the movie, their work would turnout counterproductive because they would work on top of each other with a lack of communication.

From the movie, I believe Deep Throat, Ben Bradlee and Debbie Sloan. Without Deep Throat, the reporters would not have carried out the investigation, because he was the one who pointed them in the right direction. Ben Bradlee first supported the reporters from the beginning, and then kept supporting them even after the tension fell upon the paper. Finally, Debbie Sloan went against her personal connection to sources and gave the reporters crucial details they were needing to keep investigating.

If I had the opportunity to talk with the reporters, I think I would ask — why was this a hill you were willing to die on? They were faced with the possibility of being murdered, thrown in jail and always had to cover their tracks. In hindsight, this is a hill the American people should be thankful they risked their lives on, but I wonder if at the time — when they were not truly certain what was happening — they ever reconsidered their options. Or if the lack of family made it easy to die on this hill.

WC: 851