A perfect storm of Watergate.
Watergate scandal has been exemplary for investigative journalism for decades. Its unique
capacity has been not only that it led to a resignation of an acting president of the US but also
its widest scope. During two years Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward had been exposing a
network of corrupt connections, involving dozens of high ranking officials and ending with the
president himself. In their book “All the President’s men” (1974) they were summing up all the
obtained data, along with detailed description of their investigation. But the text is so crammed
with information, names and dates that it often takes some effort to analyse, what event led to
another and who implicated whom. Non the least, it’s the result of significant lacunae left by the
authors, as well as our lack of understanding the system of subordination in the given era.
The investigation has been sparked by arrest of 5 burglars equipped with wiretapping devices
at the headquarters of Democratic election campaign. One of them appeared to be a retired CIA
officer James McCord, while the others were exiled Cuban militarymen, who had previously
participated in covert operations led by CIA. A telephone number found in McCord’s notebook
led to Howard Hunt, an assistant of the president’s counsel Charles Colson. That helped to
establish a major hypothesis that the White House administration might have been involved in
spying activities. The ensuing investigation not only approved that but revealed a much broader
array of illegal actions and officials directly involved in those.
Another evidence found in the belongings of the burglars was a check, that led the
investigation to the funds of Committee for Re-election of the President (CRP) - a not-for-profit
association managing Nixon’s campaign of 1972. As CRP became implicated, it has started a
major purging of all evidence, while the White House administration secretly initiated a
“cover-up” operation for it’s not-for-profit protege. As many members of Nixon’s staff were
sharing position in both organisations, a gross abuse of power ensued.
Generally speaking, in a big part the reporters were following the steps of the FBI’s
investigation. But while the agents (and later, the judge and the jury) were able to interrogate
the suspects, journalists had to find other ways. The routine they developed instead was to use
leaks and unattributed information to find people, who would have confirmed some facts
contributing to the whole puzzle. Many of the approaches used would be found controversial
nowadays (and even at that time). The iconic phone call of Bernstein, when he would have
counted till 10 to get a confirmation is one example. As almost all witnesses and CRP
employees were not willing to talk, the reporters used “negative confirmation” (when one
“confirms” by not opposing a suggestion) quite too often. A lot of The Washington Post’s
breaking pieces remained based on unattributed sources solely. The journalists even tried to
locate and approach grand jurors for a comment, which is a criminal offence. But the steady
flow of reporting and pitching on the issue has created a certain atmosphere within the public,
that made Woodword’s and Bernstein’s reporting somehow credible.
Their sources greatly varied. Majorly, as the criminal investigation progressed, there were
more and more people willing to use them as a way to clean themselves of charges or
somehow influence the public and thus the court decision. On the other hand, a simple call from
a reader helped to discover the role of Donald Segretti and CREEP’s sabotaging activities. But
the main mystery of the Watergate scandal remained the three unnamed sources, that
practically led the work of the couple. In fact, the analysis of that mystery might lead to a major
reconsideration of the value of their work.
The first, named “Bookkeeper” was indeed an accountant at CRP. She had access to the
internal documentation of the organisation and was providing the journalists with data on a
secret cash fund used for paying for irregular activities. The second, named “Z”, was recently
revealed to be a grand juror - a connection the authors strictly deny in the book. Thus, they had
access to the data disclosed during the closed trial.
And finally, Deep Throat. In the book he is broadly described as a person “working for the
government”. In 2005 it has been revealed, that in fact that was Mark Felt, Associate Director of
the FBI. That to say, one of the top ranking officials within American security system. That
suggests that the reporters had a first-hand access to the whole scope of the criminal
investigation from the very beginning and later concealed that in their depiction of the events.
Another suggestion might be, that the whole “perfect storm” of Watergate scandal has been
carefully orchestrated by Felt, who manipulated the journalists. They even suggest that in the
text:
“The reporters had speculated on the reason for Deep Throat’s piecemeal approach… it was
equally possible that he felt that the effect of one or two big stories, no matter how devastating,
could be blunted by the White House. Or, by raising the stakes gradually, was he simply making
the game more interesting for himself?”
Indeed, the whole pace of the reporting has been greatly determined by Felt’s revelations. He
did give the time for Nixon’s administration to start the “cover-up” operation so it could get
implicated even more. Was Watergate more ​his story than Bernstein’s and Woodward’s? A
good question to ask.
Another important notion is that from the start of the Senate investigation the reporters were
not contributing much to the course of events. The major revelation, that demonstrated the
grossest abuse of power and signaled the beginning of the end for Nixon’s presidency was
made by FBI’s director Pat Gray almost accidentally, when he told the senators that he had
personally brought some crucial case files to John Dean at the White House. That astoned the
investigators and reporters alike as an unthinkable violation. Particularly, that revelation
triggered the following dramatic course of events - and The Washington Post reporters had not
contributed to that in any way.
Thus said, the legacy of Bernstein and Woodward as the authors of one of the most thorough
and extensive political investigations remains untouched. Whether or not some crucial parts of
their narration have been constructed post-factum, we still have a great example of professional
persistency, complex analysis and journalistic technique.