Article Comment: Watergate Anonymous Source “Deep Throat” Comes Forward
Helpful, but summarized what we already knew; however, it is a great article to read if having no prior knowledge on the subject. The information about Mark Felt, “Deep Throat”, was interesting. Was Felt turned off by Nixon’s authoritative tactics after Hoover died? Unfortunately, we may never really know.
Q: How would you characterize Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting process? In what way did their actions exemplify or not exemplify the ethical standards listed in the ethical news values on page 35 in your textbook? Also compare their conduct with the Washington Post’s Code of Ethics.
A: Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting process is characterized by persistence. Completely confident in almost every source they attained, team “Woodstein” never gave up even when sources weren’t talking. According to the ethical standards on page 35 of our text, “Woodstein” fell short. For example, the ethical rule of “confirmation” in our text refers to “writing articles that are able to withstand scrutiny inside and outside the newsroom” (Media Ethics 35). At times, “Woodstein’s” colleagues heavily doubted their stories or didn’t think the story would appeal to the masses. There was also a scene in which a news broadcast involved politicians bashing “Woodstein’s” attempt to link Watergate to the White House.
According to the Washington Post’s Code of Ethics regarding the “Reporters Role” the document states to “report the news, not make the news”. “Woodstein” and the Washington Post failed in this particular ethical code.
Q: Is there ever a time when you think the press should suppress a story about the President or his family? Or, is every aspect of a politician or other public person fair game for the press?
A: When in the light of the public eye, every aspect of a politician or other public person is fair game for the press. Although a cliché statement, “it comes with the territory”. Notable figures in society more or less give up their rights to privacy. If the leader of the United States is corrupt in some way, the people have the right to know. The press would not be doing their job if they kept shady acts of the government under wraps. With so many social media facets existing today, the government should know better than act corruptly. However, sensationalism plays a role in this question. For example, I don’t care to know petty facts about our current president.
Keep the stories true and worthwhile to the reader.
Q:Do you think the movie was an accurate portrayal of journalism and an accurate retelling of what happened with Woodward and Bernstein? Or was this movie “Hollywood hype”?
A: Since attending Lindenwood, I have seen “All the President’s Men” three times. Obviously, professors show this controversial movie for a good reason. I think the portrayal of journalism is both accurate and inaccurate in retelling what actually happened with “Woodstein”. Journalistically, the movie shows both the good and bad, the achievements and downfalls. The movie displays some essential basics of what to do and what not to do in journalism. Having never seen or heard of the movie until my college years, I feel as though “All the President’s Men” does not fall under “hollywood hype”.
Good job referencing the text.