Introduction:
It is almost to everyone’s knowledge that the media has remained a significant part of every day’s business in the United States. Owing to its active, investigative, and responsible role, it has been termed as the “Fourth Estate”, or the fourth pillar, the other three being the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, of the American government. It is also never an exaggeration to say that the American news media are one of the country’s most powerful institutions. Journalism is so powerful an institution that the newsmen and media personnel are considered as more influential than members of the U.S. Congress or Supreme Court. Journalism, as a profession is not the product of modern age, but it seems to have played its part very far back into the history of the United States, though possibly under different guise. The essays of Paine and the jeremiads of Coughlin in 7170s parallel the opinions published in today’s New York Times or the Washington Post. Though these writings were not objectively journalistic in nature but they doubtlessly did provide the American public with new ideas to form an opinion. It is unhesitatingly an acceptable fact that the tide of American journalism starts from the late eighteenth century, passes through the nineteenth century, and reaches its climax in the late twentieth century. Most interestingly, during the two centuries of U.S. history, the ground-shaking events such as the American civil War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair, etc., have caught the eye of American press. And it is most probably in response to these important episodes that journalism industry has evolved as an important, free, independent, and powerful institution in American political system. One of such shocking episodes is the Watergate Scandal in 1970s under the presidency of Richard Nixon. What is the media effect of the Watergate scandal in American politics? Did the media bring any changes in reporting extraordinary events? Was the Post-Watergate press more free and responsible one? These are indeed some challenging but interesting questions to answer. The reason for having this aspect of the implications of the Watergate opted for research is that the scandal brought about a considerable change in the role and importance of media. Woodward and Bernstein became the household names in the United States. Everyone wanted to become Woodward or Bernstein. Journalism became the dream of almost every young American. No one wanted to miss the coverage of a story or event such as the Watergate. The most important and noticeable change that the media marked soon after the Watergate affair, was its focus on the character and private life of the candidates and the official figures. What interests me the more, are the remarkable changes in the role of American media and its (media) impact on the subsequent scandals. In fact, the latter presents an interesting case for analysis, as to what extent the media succeeded in preventing more scandals to happen. These questions will be addressed in the light of existing literature and with the support of critical arguments. Moreover, an elaborate account of scholarship regarding the outcomes of media role in the Watergate Scandal will be presented. This research paper will also endeavor to highlight the revival of journalistic principles and new techniques introduced during the Watergate and in the post-Watergate press. Some critics contradict the argument that media in the post-Watergate period was more likely to assume it pre-Watergate role. Thus finally, it becomes our most interesting task to prove that; did the post-Watergate press really become aggressive and independent?
The Watergate Scandal and the Media: A brief Historical Touch
The Watergate is a shocking case of political corruption in American political history. The scandal was revealed when five burglars were caught by Washington police in the Democratic National Committee’s office on Jun 17th, 1972, and ended with the resignation of President Nixon in 1974. Richard Nixon was the first American president who felt compelled to resign because of the severity of the situation. The interesting part of the story was the role of the press beside the legislative and judicial organs of the government, which it played to bring down the President. In the beginning, the Washington Post played a courageous part in reporting facts about the Watergate Scandal. It was the first news agency which published the scandal on the front page. The role of the television channels except the CBS was quite disappointing and abysmal in the beginning. Only 52% of Americans could recognize the term Watergate. The Washington Post demonstrated a phenomenal service in early six months after the Watergate. The credit of such sensational and responsible role of the Washington Post must go the Editor, Katherine Graham, and the Co-editor, Ben Bradlee. We can not ignore the role played by Woodward and Bernstein for their brave and courageous reporting. These two journalists risked every threat to their lives and their families in revealing truth to the public and bringing the perpetrators of this grave crime to the book. The president and his staff in the White House made every possible effort to resist and downgrade the true news stories of the reporters. The Nixon staff had threatened the journalists with verbal attacks. It had created the Washington Star to counter the Washington Post and anti-government reporting. The Nixon administration had ordered the filing of charges against two TV channels viz. the WJTX-TV in Jacksonville and the WPLG-TV in Miami, which did not work out (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 214). Nixon had also sought the help of Federal Communication Commission to ban two TV channels in Florida. He is reported to have shown an extreme hatred for the Post. Haldeman has quoted Nixon in his personal diary saying, “The Post is going to have damnable-damnable-problem out of this one…” (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 214). The presidential administration had devised such plans that the government officials began to avoid meeting Woodward and Bernstein. But the journalistic inquiry into the misdeeds of the Nixon administration persisted. The Washington Post with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein joined hands with the journalists from other news agencies and struggled against the stiff resistance shown by the president and his boys. This role of the media also encouraged the role of the other branches of the government. The legislative and judicial bodies of government created independent legislative and judicial committees to probe into the case of the Watergate. Thus, the media along with the other branches of the government stood firm in the face of the president and brought him down along with his nears and dears, and set a classic precedent of free and powerful press for the first time in American political history.
The Revival of Journalistic Principles:
After looking into the role of media in the collapse of the White House, we must attend the part in which Woodsteins and news agencies played in the revival of journalistic principles throughout this period. Woodward and Bernstein were never afraid to revive the motto of News Organizations to set an agenda (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 235). The Woodsteins courageously avoided the notes issued by the president and his key players to lead the journalists and public astray. Rather, they with the help of Washington Post set their own agenda of carrying out inquiry into the wrongdoings of the Nixon administration. The Washington Post revived the principle of standing tall means standing alone. It never sided with the wrong, no matter how dangerous and problematic the situation was. It sided with the truth, and finally succeeded in rallying around the strength of other news agencies and journalists. Another important principle of pure journalism that seems to have been enlivened is the economic one. The journalists involved in reporting against the president had favored truth over economic gains (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 235). They never stopped reporting truth to the public for the sake of money. This is undoubtedly an important aspect of a free press, and might have influenced the post-Watergate news patterns. Yet, another important principle was that the Washington Post reported the immorality of the Nixon administration keeping in view the limitations on media (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 239). It worked out its part, the Justice Department investigated the charges, the Supreme Court required the tapes from the president, the Congress voted the articles of impeachment, and the president resigned.
Introduction to New Journalistic Techniques:
Another interesting segment of the changes in press is the introduction of new techniques in journalism by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The first technique was the keeping of names and addresses of important government officials who worked for CREEP. According to an estimate, they had a list of the names with the addresses of 300 important official figures. They knew that it was quite difficult to meet or interview a government official about the case in the White House, and most of the time they will not have let them meet any body in such situation. These shrewd journalists, one can say, began to practice journalism with psychology. They believed that they might be rejected though finally let in if they go meeting somebody at their house. Streitmatter, while quoting Woodward says in his book that once they went to interview a person who had a party at his house. They went to a nearby Subway, ate hamburger, returned, and interviewed that person when the party was over. Secondly, they came to rely on the Deep Throat, the most famous anonymous source in the history of American journalism. The Deep Throat was a good friend of Woodward before the Watergate break-in. He never shared new information with Woodward and Bernstein, but verified many facts which they felt dubious at. Moreover, the Deep Throat also kept them away from the false directions. They also developed a system of signals out of spy novel. For instance, when the reporter wanted to initiate a meeting, he moved a flowerpot with a red flag in it to the rear of his apartment balcony, meaning the two men would meet at 2 A.M. in a specific underground parking garage (Streitmatter, 1997, P. 210). These techniques also help us in understanding that journalism was adopting important changes.
The Post-Watergate Media:
The honest and public-spirited role of media in the Watergate Scandal introduced a significant number of changes in press in the post-Watergate period. Media was widely appreciated and lauded for its contribution to bringing the President Nixon and his aides to the book. Woodard and Bernstein became household names. They came to be known as Woodsteins. They were titled the journalistic legends or the icons of journalism in the United States. Another important outcome was the trust and confidence of the public in media. According to a report, 68% Americans trusted the media after the Watergate Scandal, which fell down by 21% after 1995. Yet, another important change was the establishment of journalism schools. A lot of journalism schools were established as it had become a favorite subject of the American youth. They were inspired by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Almost every wanted to excel in this field at that point in time. The journalists were dubbed as the saviors of democracy. They began to be respected by the public wide across the country. Another important change that was made visible was the recognition of the role of media as the Fourth Estate. Media began to be actually recognized as the fourth pillar of American political system. The media was extolled for its positive character as the guardian of American democracy. The Post-Watergate journalists became more willing and eager to question the government official explanation of the events. The reliance of the previous journalists on unreliable sources was discouraged to the greater extent. Another significant change was in the scope of the role of the media. Previously, the newsmen were limited to the official accountability or responsibility of the officials in their offices, but the post-Watergate journalism seems to have established and reiterated ethics in journalism by looking into the private lives of the officials. Now the personality of the public official also became a matter of scrutiny and investigation (Marion, 2010, PP. 106-107). This also reinforces the argument that the public officials have respectful position in the eyes of the people, and they need to keep up with that image. Another important change was the undoing of limitations having been placed on the role of press in reporting the governmental activities. The press began to act as a watchdog to keep a check on the workings of the government by adopting an unrestrained role. These changes show that the Post-Watergate media became more free, independent, responsible, and public-spirited. It also began to act rationally by relying on the most reliable sources of information.
The Antagonist Argument:
Is it right to say that the media became very independent and responsible in the wake of the Watergate? Some say yes, yet some others contradict the yes-argument. Michael Schudson, in his book, Watergate in American Memory, says that calling the post-Watergate press uniformly free is largely a myth (Olmsted, 1974-76, P.2). According to the critics, except some brave and courageous journalist, many others in the post-Watergate period began to take a return to what they called a more “responsible” press. By responsible press they meant the one which did not oppose the government viewpoint all the time, and which was not as aggressive as it showed up during the Watergate crisis. Firstly, some rather many journalists were prepared not to pursue the news as an adversarial source against the government. Secondly, the pro-government forces such as the neoconservatives began to worry about the aggressive role of the media. They began to attach terms such as the “imperial media” (Olmsted, 1974-76, P.3) with the free and independent status of media. The aggressiveness of media was dubbed as a dangerous thing for American democracy. The movie and book, All the President’s Men by Woodward and Bernstein in the post-Watergate period threatened the government that the media was becoming too powerful (Olmsted, 1974-76, P. 3). Many journalists had personal and ideological reasons which compelled them to abandon the aggressive role as reporters. The Ford’s government had punished those who were more aggressive in their approach towards the governmental activities. Except Seymour Hersh, Schorr, and Jack Anderson, many agreed with the Ford’s government’s viewpoint. They began to sing the praises of national security and respect for the government’s viewpoint which was very typical of the relationship of the government and the journalists from 1940s to 1960s when they shared common assumptions against the communist Soviet Union. Some even say that Katherine Graham of the Washington Post had also joined the group of journalists which was no more aggressive towards government. There are a number of examples which shows that many journalists adopted a silent profile or did not do much to reveal the truth about them. The “Project Jennifer” is one of such cases. It was a plot by American government under President Ford to recover the K-129, a Russian Submarine which had sunk into the Pacific Ocean in the spring of 1968. According to a report, some $350 were said to have been spent on that project. Though part of it known but the story was agreed-upon-by-the-majority-of journalists and the government to be suppressed. Similarly, while adopting deference to the intelligence community in the aftermath of the Watergate, the uncertain assassination of a CIA official, Richard Welch, in Athens, Greece was given full coverage in line with the government’s viewpoint. Thus, it is important rather essential to single out the “Project Jennifer” and “the uncertain assassination of Richard Welch” for special emphasis with reference to the role of media in the wake of the Watergate Scandal. The purpose of the case study of these two mysterious and unknown events is to test the legitimacy and responsibility of the role the press played in the post-Watergate period. It may also bring to light the antagonist viewpoint against the most popular and widely prevalent thought that the U.S. media became much aggressive in its role and responsibility in the wake of the Watergate affair.
K-129, Project Jennifer, and the Media:
In the spring of 1968, a Russian Submarine, K-129 sunk into the Pacific Ocean. The Soviet Golf-class ballistic missile submarine (SSB) K-129 sank off Hawaii on April 11, 1968 probably due to missile malfunction. The Golf-class submarines were diesel-electric ballistic missile subs, a modified version of the Foxtrot class submarines. They carried 3 SS-N-5 SLBMs in an elongated sail structure. The sunken submarine was located 16, 500 feet of water. The Mizar (AGOR 11) and the specialized research submarine USS Halibut (SSN 587) are said to have taken part in the search of the sunken submarine. By the third week of March 1968, Soviet naval headquarters declared K-129 missing, and organized a massive air, surface, and sub-surface search and rescue effort into the North Pacific from Kamchatka and Vladivostok The submarine was actually headed for the west coast of the U.S., but approximately 700-1000 miles north east of Hawaii she went down (Follow the links in the references section).
The U.S. authorities had heard about it, and using triangulation they knew where it was. The hunt began. The problem was that it was 16, 500-17, 000 miles deep in the water. It was indeed a daunting problem. They became at times disappointed, but they were determined to do it because of its worth for it contained a gold mine of secret documents on the Russian Navy, surface and sub-surface weapons or systems, etc. The then president of the United States, Richard Nixon wanted it. President Nixon, in a conference with the CIA decided to ask a billionaire industrialist, Howard Hughes to get it done. America embarked on the biggest and most secret project since the creation of atomic bomb and World War II with partners of U.S. Navy, the CIA, and the billionaire industrialist, Howard. The operation began and was codenamed as the “Project Jennifer”. The recovery effort centered on the Hughes’ Glomar Explorer, a 63, 000 ton deep-sea salvage vessel built for the project. The ship was built under the “cover story” (Global Marine to be Built: Mining Ship for Hughes tool) (Jennifer Project, 2008), that she was a deep-sea mining ship, intended to recover “manganese nodules” (potato-size chunks of manganese mixed with iron, nickel, cobalt, and other useful metals) from the ocean floor. The ship was supposedly being built for the Summa Corporation at the direction of Howard Hughes for use of Global Marine Development Incorporation. Hughes Glomar Explorer was equipped with a massive hoisting mechanism amidships and a “moon pool”, a large internal underwater hanger to provide access to the ocean. The submarine was to be hoisted by a massive claw, which was stored in HMB-1. The Glomar Explorer arrived on the recovery site on July 4th, 1974, and conducted salvage operations for the next month. According to the story released to the public, only the forward 38 feet of the submarine was recovered. The section included two nuclear-tipped torpedoes, various cipher/code equipment, and 8 dead crew men. The recovered section was small enough to be brought into the moon pool, where it was analyzed and dissected. It is also possible that the entire doomed submarine was recovered and only half of it was made public.
This part of the story, which is our special emphasis, is the role media played in making the event known to the public. Did the media give a full coverage to the “Project Jennifer” as it did to the Watergate affair? Did media play as responsible a role as it did in bringing the President Nixon down for his political corruption? The Los Angeles Times broke the story “U.S. Reported after Russ Sub” (Project Jennifer: Hughes Glomar Explorer, 2010) in February 1975, and by March 1975 numerous news stories linked the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship publicly listed as a research vessel owned and operated by Summa Corporation, and the Secret U.S. government operation. After the publication of several news stories the Director of CIA, William Colby, approached the Chief Editor of The Los Angeles Times, William Thomas, to discontinue any further publication of news about the activities connected to the Glomar Explorer. The CIA claimed that any records that might exist which may reveal any CIA connection with or interest in the activities of the Glomar Explorer, or any evidence that might reveal the existence of records of this type would be classified, and therefore, exempt from disclosure under exemption 1 of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act: a federal law, which defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute). The CIA also insisted that exemption 3 applied, as the National Security Act of 1947 precluded them from releasing information related to the functions of the CIA. Thomas gave a very cool response and regretted the part of the story which had already been published by his news agency. Similarly Seymour Hersh of the New York Times also uncovered some details about the operation in 1974, but was kept from publication by the action of the Director of the CIA, William Colby. In the similar fashion, the aggressive Katherine Graham of the Washington Post had also agreed with the CIA director not to get into the event of Glomar Explorer. Except Jack Anderson and Seymour Hersh, the whole lot Journalist gave in to what William Colby had directed. They were convinced that it was a matter of national security, and that any disclosure of the operation may harm the image of the CIA and the U.S. government. The Post editorialized that the project showed the CIA “performing its prime function brilliantly” (The Glomar Explorer, 1975, P. b6). The New York Times editorial board also used the adjective “brilliant” to describe the “complex and fascinating undersea adventure” (Project Jennifer, 1975, P. 30). Time called Project Jennifer “the great submarine snatch” and characterized it a clean, highly creative enterprise that had served its purpose” (The Great Submarine Snatch, 1975, P.7). Newsweek declared that the besieged CIA “had shown it could take on a real-life Mission Impossible… and make nearly possible after all” (CIA’s Mission Impossible, 1975, P.II:6). They adopted self-censorship in reporting an event which was very important to every American.
The “Project Jennifer” was not a fun. It was the biggest and the most secret spy mission ever carried out during the Cold War period. It was not an operation which the CIA, the U.S. Navy, or Howard Hughes had concerns about, but it was an event which was important to every single American, and which could have left harmful effects on Americans which it fortunately did not. It could have triggered a war with Russia, had they not adopted a silent profile over what they came to know about. The media also failed in disclosing the public money the CIA had used for carrying out this operation. According to an estimate, the CIA had given some $350 million to Howard Hughes to build the Glomar Explorer. But the project proved to be a white elephant which had cost more than it had benefited the CIA. The spending of this huge amount of money on sunken and old submarine came to be of no use to the American public. It came to be a failure from what was reported about it by the CIA authorities. What was captured from the doomed submarine? What did we learn from the astonishing recovery? All still remains unexplained and covert. To this day the files, photographs, videotapes, and other documentary evidence remain closed to the public. The most daring spy mission ever undertaken is still shrouded in mystery and remains as do all the missions in this series.
The Uncertain Assassination of Richard Welch and the Media:
Richard Skeffington Welch, a Harvard-educated classicist, was a CIA station Chief in Athens. He was killed near his home on the night of December 23, 1975 by the radical Marxist organization Revolutionary Organization 17 November (N17). This organization was against the U.S. government, which had backed the military rule in Greek. The mastermind of this organization was a university professor, Gitopoulos (Greek arrest over CIA Chief Murder, 2002). The group was named after the date of student uprising against the military junta in 1973. The Ford administration orchestrated Welch’s funeral in such a way that discouraged the investigators from carrying out inquiry against the intelligence community. When the dead body of Welch arrived it was received with such pomp and great arms that it surprised everyone. The body was taken to the Arlington National Cemetery amidst pomp and respect. The dead body was welcomed by the president and a rare and glittering tableau of American national security establishment. The body was buried with such protocol and in the presence of such men that very few Americans expected.
Now comes the media part. The media played a willing role as part of the administration’s propaganda campaign. It gave live coverage to the event and published the pictures of the grieving widow of Welch on the front-page. The journalists were convinced that they played their due role, but later they did realize that they were used as conduits for the plot of the administration. This role of the made did not bring to the public the cause of the uncertain assassination of Welch and also threw cold waters on the ability of the investigators to scrutinize the case. The media played a very disappointing role in the reporting of facts in the episode of Welch’s assassination. The coverage of the death of Richard Welch serves to be an illustrative example of the post-Watergate media’s deference to the intelligence community.
Conclusion:
Reviewing from the beginning, one can justifiably argue that the Watergate had noticeable effects on the role of U.S. media. Honestly speaking, it is in no way correct or based on facts of history to say only this that the post-Watergate became free, responsible, and aggressive in its role, and ignore the rest which is also part of the role and responsibility of the media. No one, in the right sense of their judgment, can deny the positive changes that were seen in press after Watergate. The media played an astonishing part in revealing the ever surprising case of political bribery and corruption under Nixon administration. The president was forced to resign. The Woodstein became the household names in the United States. Journalism schools were established. Students began to take interest in journalism. Everyone wanted to be Bob Woodward or Carl Stein. They became the journalistic legends in the history of the United States. They presented the example of bravery and honesty with journalism. They helped in reviving the journalistic principles of agenda-setting, sidedness with truth, preference to truth over economic gains, and the responsible role of media within prescribed limits, of journalism. They also introduced some techniques which may prove helpful to reporters in carrying out inquiries against illegal and illicit workings of the government.
But this is not all what we have to accept. The media effect of the Watergate is also viewed with some contradictory minds. This argument is also no less powerful and legitimate. The main architects of this point comprise of Olmsted and Kathryn, who have presented a very interesting picture of the functions of the post-Watergate media, which is the opposite of the popularly-held belief about the responsibility and credibility of the media, in their article An American Conspiracy: The post-Watergate press and the CIA. They are also the ones who inspired the author of this paper to bring the opposite argument to light. The media, in the post-Watergate period did return to its pre-Watergate and pre-Vietnam periods. The role media played in the “Project Jennifer” and the misled coverage of the uncertain assassination of Richard Welch are the classic cases in point. The media abandoned its responsibility as a watchdog against the wrongheadedness of the government and its agencies and adopted the one very similar to the one which was prevalent from 1940s to 1960s- common assumptions of the journalist and the politicians about communist Russia. It preferred self-censorship over objectivity. The journalist gave in to what the CIA directed them to do.
In short, it is justifiable to state that the two antagonistic arguments of the media effect of the Watergate are justified and based on facts of history. Those who believe that the post-Watergate was completely free and responsible must not forget the “Project Jennifer” and the uncertain assassination of Richard Welch. The final argument would be that the role of media in the Watergate and in the other two cases is the antecedent of “good” and “bad” journalism respectively. It is left to the journalists of future generation as to what part of the story they get inspiration from.
K-129: The Prey
Glomar Explorer: The Predator
References:
CIA’s Mission Impossible, Newsweek, 31 March 1975, II:6.
Greek arrest over the CIA Chief murder. (2002). Retrieved from CNN. Com/World: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/25/greece.n17/index.html?related
Jennifer project, (2008). Retrieved from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZaVFwPhm5E
K-129 and project Jennifer. (2008). Retrieved from World Affairs Board; a community of discussion: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-warfare/45897-k-129-project-jennifer.html
Marion, E. Nancy. (2010). The politics of disgrace; the role of scandal in American politics. Carilona Academic Press: Durham north Carilona.
Olmsted & Kathryn. (1974-1976). An American conspiracy; the post-Watergate press and the CIA. Journalism History, Summer93, Vol. 19 Issue 2 p51, 8p
Project Jennifer, New York Times, 20 March 1975, 30.
Project Jennifer: Hughes Glomar Explorer. (2010). Retrieved from FAS, Intelligence Resource Program:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm
Streitmatter, R. (1997). Mightier than sword; how the news media have shaped American history. West view Press: United States.
The Glomar Explorer, Washington Post, 23 March 1975, B6.
The Great Submarine Snatch, time, 31 March 1975, 32.
Olmsted & Kathryn. (1974-1976). An American conspiracy; the post-Watergate press and the CIA. Journalism History, Summer93, Vol. 19 Issue 2 p51, 8p.
The Glomar Explorer, Washington Post, 23 March 1975, B6.
Project Jennifer, New York Times, 20 March 1975, 30.
The Great Submarine Snatch, time, 31 March 1975, 32.
CIA’s Mission Impossible, Newsweek, 31 March 1975, II:6.
Greek arrest over the CIA Chief murder. (2002). Retrieved from CNN. Com/World:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/25/greece.n17/index.html?related
Project Jennifer: Hughes Glomar Explorer. (2010). Retrieved from FAS, Intelligence Resource Program:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm
Jennifer project, (2008). Retrieved from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZaVFwPhm5E
K-129 and project Jennifer. (2008). Retrieved from World Affairs Board; a community of discussion: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-warfare/45897-k-129-project-jennifer.html
My Casual Diary 
Pingback: History of Journalism | Stating The Obvious
Pingback: Evoluția jurnalismului politic, sub semnul lui „coincidentia oppositorum” - Lanseaza - Blog politic