1
   

Watergate at 35: How 'Woodstein' Did It

 
 
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 07:39 am
Watergate at 35: How 'Woodstein' Did It
By Alicia C. Shepard, author of "Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate"
Published: June 17, 2007
E & P

Today, he's on the road hawking his new book on Hillary Clinton and getting A-list treatment because of something he did 35 years ago.

On this date, June 17, 1972, Carl Bernstein, then an unknown reporter who covered Virginia, was in the Washington Post newsroom because he hadn't finished an overdue story. His editor was fed up and had ordered Bernstein to work the weekend that an odd burglary would be discovered at the Watergate hotel that would change his life forever.

It was on this date that five men in business suits wearing surgical gloves and carrying sophisticated electronic gear broke into the Democratic national headquarters inside the Watergate complex. It was their second attempt. The burglars had gotten inside a few weeks earlier but the bugs they placed were defective, so they went back. This time police caught them around 2 a.m.

Bob Woodward, 29, a cub of a reporter, was called that morning at his nearby apartment to work the break-in story. He eagerly went to the office to help. Woodward was the kind of young, hungry reporter that any editor loved. He never turned down a chance to work.

Bernstein, on the other hand, was losing patience with the Post and they with him. At 28, Bernstein thought that after six years as a Metro reporter, he should be elevated to rock critic or covering the Vietnam War. In fact, the Post was closer to firing Bernstein for being lazy and unreliable than rewarding him.

"Stories he didn't particularly like, he waltzed around a lot, procrastinated, dawdled, found small crevices that somehow became big problems," said Tom Wilkinson, Bernstein's editor at the time of the break-in. "All the kinds of roadblocks, real and otherwise, that creative reporters can dream up."

There's no doubt, though, that Bernstein knew a good story, and he quickly insinuated himself onto the Watergate break-in that day, getting a tagline along with Woodward and six other reporters for the first-day story. The byline for the nearly 2,000-word front-page story belonged to legendary Post police reporter Alfred E. Lewis.

"I think Bart Barnes actually wrote it because Al never wrote his own stories," Woodward told me in 2003.

Even though nine reporters worked the story that Saturday, only Woodward and Bernstein showed up the next day to report on the strange story. Neither was thrilled to see the other.

To Bernstein, Woodward was a suck-up. He'd only been at the paper for nine months. He'd moved up the editorial food chain way too fast for Bernstein's liking. Bernstein thought of him as the "rat turd" reporter for all his front-page stories on failed restaurant inspections. Bernstein figured Woodward's meteoric rise had nothing to do with talent and everything to do with his establishment credentials: WASP, Yale graduate, navy lieutenant.

"I thought Woodward was a prima donna, and an ass kisser, a navy guy, green lawns of Yale, tennis courts," Bernstein told the late author, David Halberstam in the mid-1970s. "I didn't really think a lot of most of Woodward's stories. I thought they were from the wham-bam school of journalism, making a lot out of very little."

To Woodward, Bernstein was a quasi-counterculture journalist, a long-haired freak who rode a bicycle, didn't own a car and smoked cigarettes incessantly. He was either constantly borrowing money and never paying it back, or out womanizing while still married to his first wife. Besides, he was a Democrat and Woodward was a registered Republican who had voted for Nixon in 1968.

Everyone knows how the rest of the story goes. The pair were thrown together by their editor, Barry Sussman (who doesn't speak to them today), and they made history, helping the Post win a Pulitzer in 1973 (they didn't win it, the paper did) for its Watergate reporting.

By many standards, Bernstein has lived a successful life, but compared to his prolific and productive Watergate partner, Bernstein comes up short. Today Woodward is virtually the fifth branch of government; the most famous investigative reporter in the country. Since the pair wrote "All the President's Men" (1974) and "The Final Days" (1976), Woodward has written 12 more books - practically one book every two years. Bernstein just published his third book, "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton."It took him eight years.

But what most people don't know, or don't remember is that Woodward was a neophyte who depended a great deal on Bernstein's well-developed skills as a reporter. Woodward learned from Bernstein. It was Bernstein who knew how to get credit card and phone records; how to work sources; how to work the system. Woodward owes a lot to Bernstein. He has said several times that he was able to capitalize on Bernstein's talents better than Bernstein could.

"When we started working together besides being young I had precisely one year and nine months experience in the newspaper business," Woodward told me. "He had 12 years. Carl taught me an immense amount. He knew the ropes. Twelve years versus less than two year experience. He taught me an immense amount about keeping notes, and going back. When Carl gets into something there's no more talented journalist."

Each man brought separate strengths. Woodward was the plodding, disciplined one. Bernstein the street-smart one who could see the big picture. Together, they did something neither could have done on his own. Through months and years of reporting, they were able to help expose the corruption and criminality of Nixon and his administration.

But by the end of 1976, after four intense years, the polar opposite personalities could barely stand to be in the same room or talk to one another, and so their partnership came to an end when Bernstein left the Post in December 1976. They were millionaires. They were celebrated. They were in demand, and they had the kind of fame, fortune and respect that most journalists hope to achieve by the end of their lives.

Woodward was 33; Bernstein 32.

"Their careers have played out very much the way they were as young reporters," said Peter Osnos, a former Washington Post correspondent and founder of PublicAffairs Books. "Bob is prodigious and productive and formidable, and Carl is brilliant in spurts. The combination at the early stages of their careers created something historic."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 397 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 07:53 am
Watergate's 35th Anniversary: Would Story Be Broken Today?
Watergate's 35th Anniversary: Would That Story Have Been Broken Today?
By Joe Strupp, E & P
June 15, 2007

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

Sunday will be a memorable day for me, for two reasons. Yes, it is Fathers Day and a reminder of the joy my two children have brought to my life, not to mention some likely breakfast in bed.

But just as significant in my life, and that of many other reporters is that it's also the 35th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. Even though I was no more than six years old at the time that the five burglars broke into the Democratic National Headquarters in that Washington hotel and office building, the impact it had on me was strong.

As I grew older and became almost obsessed with the break-in and subsequent investigations, trials, and finally resignation of Richard Nixon, I also marveled at the way two reporters from The Washington Post had broken the story of Nixon administration ties to the crime, and later his criminal cover-up. As interesting to me, and probably thousands of other young journalists, was the way Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and many others at the Post meticulously investigated the administrative crimes, using old-fashioned "shoe-leather" reporting, sources, and digging up information.


As any readers of "All The President's Men" know, it took Woodward and Bernstein, as well as others who broke elements of the story, hundreds of boring hours poring over documents, transcripts and finding often-reluctant interviewees to track down the stories. When the Pulitzer Prize went to the paper in 1973, it was not for any "gotcha" interviews, opinion-laden blog postings, or cable gasbag arguments over guilt, innocence or constitutional abuse.

These reporters used the journalistic basics that I, and all other seasoned reporters, would learn and hopefully practice during our careers. Taking time to find out what happened, why, and what it meant. They also did much of their reporting through anonymous sources, with little if any real threat of jail time or court subpoenas.

Yes, subpoenas were threatened and even served on the Post journalists, but no one ended up in a Judith Miller-style court appearance, or jail time, and likely would not have given the way reporters were treated then.

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact onreporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

While it is important to remember the political tragedy and journalistic success that was Watergate, it is also sad to remember how much journalism has changed since then. Yes, the advent of online news and worldwide Web reach has helped newspapers, and most other media, tremendously by allowing daily papers to compete with other 24-hour news animals.

But it has also rushed much of the news process to the point where careful reviews and triple-checking of facts are often not done in time. During their award-winning reporting, much of it done over days and weeks, the Watergate reporters had their share of goofs and mistakes, but far fewer than the scoops and revelations that made such coverage valuable, and able to stand up to the scrutiny of those who regularly sought to criticize it.

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Still, the majority of today's newspaper reporting is having to be limited in some cases -- both due to staffing cuts and new 24/7 demands. The Watergate anniversary is a good reminder of the need for that vital part of newspapers, watchdog news, not to be forgotten.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:30 am
Woodward: Yes, I Should Have Probed Iraqi WMD More Closely
Bob Woodward: Yes, I Should Have Probed Iraqi WMD More Closely
by Bob Woodward
By E&P Staff
Published: June 18, 2007

The venue was a bit odd -- an online chat marking the 35th anniversary of the Watergate burglary -- but it produced one of the clearest admissions yet by Washington Post editor/reporter Bob Woodward that he was among the many who fumbled the ball on pre-war Iraqi WMDs. He also took issue with how a key Fred Thompson angle relating to Watergate is portrayed.

Woodward has written three books relating to the war, each one more critical of the effort than the previous one, but in the online chat at www.washingtonpost.com this afternoon he was asked about the media's performance while the run-up to the war was still underway.

A reader from Rancho Mirage, Calif., asked: "In light of Watergate, why did the "investigative" branch of the press miss so badly on the Bush-Cheney spin machine to justify Iraq? Was the lesson of Watergate wasted, or was the press serving the country well?"

Woodward replied: "I think the press and I in particular should have been more aggressive in looking at the run-up to the Iraq war, and specifically the alleged intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles. To answer the WMD question before the March 2003 invasion would have been a monumental task, but one that we should have undertaken more systematically."

Later, in response to a similar question, he added: "I think we've learned a lot from Watergate and from the handling of controversy and scandal in all the presidents' administrations since then. At the same time, as I said earlier, I wish everyone would be more aggressive -- the press and the Congress, and in developing a fuller system of accountability. Hopefully those in government also would see the value of transparency. Speaking openly and honestly gets issues out on the table, and as Nixon himself once said, 'it's the coverup that always matters.'"

Another reader asked about Fred Thompson, who was an attorney for the Watergate committee chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin and asked the crucial question about whether Nixon kept tape recordings.

Woodward replied: "First of all, when Fred Thompson -- who was the Republican cousel to the Senate Watergate committee -- asked Alexander Butterfield the question about possible tape recordings in the White House or Oval Office, Thompson, like a good lawyer, knew the answer -- because three days before the public testimony, lawyers and investigators for the committee got Butterfield to reveal the existence of the secret tape-recording system. Though Thompson seems to get public credit for asking this critical question, it was the work of others on the committee staff who dug out Butterfield's revelation in a lengthy interview on a hot Friday afternoon on July 13, 1973."

On another note, Woodward was asked if was really friends with Carl Bernstein (they have had their differences). He replied: "I just talked to him an hour ago, and we talk all the time and see each other regularly. He was down here visiting my wife Elsa and I last week while on his book tour for his Hillary Clinton excellent biography 'A Woman in Charge.' Carl and I indeed are friends and will always be friends. We look at lots of things very differently, but over the decades have become much closer."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Watergate at 35: How 'Woodstein' Did It
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 05:15:43