The Watergate Scandal And it's impact on journalism
Interview with Ben Bradlee
By: Jill Wiedenmayer Instructor: Mr. Alex Haight Date:February 10, 2006 Wiedenmayer 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Release Form 2 Statement of Purpose 3
Biography 4
Historical Contextualization 5 Transcription 16
Interview Analysis 36
Appendix 43 Time Log 46
Works Consulted 47
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The purpose of this oral history project is to provide a better understanding of Watergate, through an interview with a direct witness to the events surrounding the Watergate Scandal. Mr.
Bradlee worked at The Washington Post before, during and after Watergate. Watergate was the
catalyst in the progression of journalism. Before Nixon's presidency White house scandals were
not publicized as greatly as they are today. Through Mr. Bradlee's interview he able to reveal his Wiedenmayer 3 opinion on progression of journalism.
BIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN BRADLEE Wiedenmayer 4
Benjamin C. Bradlee was bom on August 2, 1921 in Boston Massachusetts. His mother
owned a dress shop and his father was a banker, who unfortunately went broke in the Great
Depression. However, wealthy relatives helped with the fmnily expenses and helped to put the
Bradlee children through private school. Mr. Bradlee received a scholarship and attended
Harvm^d. However, the day that he arrived at Hm^^ard was the day that Hitler moved into Poland
and the Sudetenland, foreshadowing the inevitable war. At the age of twenty-one World War II
had stmted mid Mr. Bradlee was drafted and served on a destroyer for three years. When he was
released from the Navy he was left jobless, but soon took a job at a small newspaper in New
Hampshire mid then moved on to work as a young reporter at The Washington Post.
At The Washington Post he became friends with Katherine Graham the owner of The Post.
There he covered first hand stories such as the race riots in Anacostia and the assassination
attempt on President Truman. Mr. Bradlee then moved on to work for Newsweek as a foreign
correspondent in Paris, but moved back to the United States to raise his son.
Mr. Bradlee moved back to his job at The Washington Post, where he becmne the Executive
Editor. At The Washington Post he worked many famous, historical stories such as the Pentagon
Papers and Watergate. Today he is eighty-three years old and still works at The Washington
Post.
HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION
Historimi Eric Altermmi believes that, "Dishonesty has become so pervasive a part of our
public discourse that in some cases, the very same people who pose as defenders of the absolute truth feel no compunction about relying on deception to do so" (Alterman 10). The President of the United States is admired for his courage, his chorizema, mid his honesty. However, with the
prominent revelation of dishonesty in the White House during the Watergate Scandal people's Wiedenmayer 5
views of the past and current presidents have changed. The Watergate Scandal was marked at the
first time in American history the lies White House administration were nationwide publicized.
The Nixon Administration paved the way for future scandals and also lead to the revelation of
past scandals that had been kept secret for years.
There have been various presidential scmidals before Watergate that have gone
overlooked by the press and or by history. However, none were so widely covered and evidently
remembered as Watergate. Mmiy previous presidents' great achievements reflect upon their
legacy in the White House, even if their presidency was miything but successful. Corruption in the White House has often gone overlooked for centuries. Historians today have consistently
given "Nixon low marks as president. One poll ranked him as the second all time worst, behind
Harding, another as third, worst being Harding and Grant" (Greenberg 291). Ulysses S. Grant,
elected this country's eighteenth president in 1868, is remembered for his strategic military tactics during the Civil War along with his efforts in Reconstruction. However, throughout his
entire presidency he battled scmidal and corruption. On various occasions subordinates of Grmit
were instigators of corruption in his administration in order to make a profit. For example, in
1874, Secretmy of the Treasury John Sanborn signed a contract with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue for a commission giving him and a few other politicimis the power to build a private
collection of United States revenue (Thomdike Al). John Sanborn collected over $427, 000 in
delinquent taxes. This collection eventually was put into the republican campaign funds. Grant
was not the only president to get into money trouble. Harding was involved in the Teapot Dome
Scandal. Harding's secretary of interior, Albert B. Fall, secretly leased public oil reserves to
private companies in return for $400,000 in bribes. However, the bribe money transferred to the
Depmlment of Interior "wasn't judged an illegal act until some years after the fact" (Anthony 54). Wiedenmayer 6
Historimi Paul Greenberg believes that "In the 1950's, political scandal usually meant graft, the
exchange of favors, or lining one's pockets for political gain; until Watergate, the Harding
Administration's Teapot Dome fiasco loomed as the benchmark for scmidal (Greenberg 49).
Although Franklin D. Roosevelt is most acclaimed for his efforts to end the Great Depression,
his presidency has also been tagged with scmidal. In 1918, his wife Eleanor found out about his
affair with Lucy Mercer Rutherford, however he continued his affair during his presidency.
Roosevelt's sexual affair with Rutherford along with three other women was not revealed until
sometime later (Flynn 249). Aside from his various adulterous escapades, FDR had various
criminal offenses that have yet to be recorded in recent textbooks. On Februmy 1, 1920, he
admitted before a large audience, "Two months after the war was declmed, I saw that the Navy
was still unprepared and I spent $40,000 for guns before Congress gave me or anyone permission to spend the money." He then went on to admit that he had "committed enough illegal acts" to be
impeached and then jailed for "999 years" (Cook 265). FDR is not the only president who
portrayed a clean image but underneath was subject to scandal. Historians and reporters have
characterized Kennedy's presidency, which took place from 1961 to 1963, as the ascendance of
idealism in the aftermath of World War II. However, it was not until twenty yems after his death that Kennedy's sexual affairs along with vmious other illegal activities while in the White House
were revealed and have thus become increasingly documented. It has been found that Kennedy
had "one of the biggest cash piles of the century through bmiking, shipbuilding, Hollywooding,
stock-jobbing, and bootleg liquor, among many other activities" (Johnson, A History of the
American People 849). More recently, the Clinton presidency has been mmked by his affair
with Monica Lewinsky. After the incident was widely publicized by the press he went on television in front of the nation and lied. The scandal threatened impeachment, leading to a Wiedenmayer 7
drawn out impeachment trial. Due to the vast amount of publication, Clinton's presidency will
forever be tainted by scandal.
Richard Milhous Nixon, will forever be known for Watergate and the only president to
resign, however before all the scandal he was deeply involved in the nation's politics. He first
made his name in 1948 as a Congressman during the Cold Wm. The Cold War brought an anti-
communist fear, producing the Second Red Scare, thus he was appointed to head the House Un-
American Activities Committee. As head he lead the semch for communist State Depmtment
Official Alger Hiss, who was later sent to prison for perjury. In 1952, Nixon, then a U.S. senator,
was accused of having a secret political fund of about $18,00, which had been collected from
illegal campaign contributions. Nixon was urged to resign, however he redeemed himself when
he gave the "Checkers speech" on television, claiming that the money was not for personal use
but for reimbursement of expenses. This issue was widely covered and became one of the
primary issues during his later vice presidential cmnpaign. From 1953 to 1962, Nixon served
under Dwight Eisenhower for two terms as Vice President. He is most acclaimed during that time for his foreign efforts in reducing the tension with China and the U.S.S.R. that had started
due to World Wm II. His valiant efforts as a vice president helped him to win his 1968
presidential election.
Throughout Nixon's presidency instances of corruption were brought to the publics
attention by the press, furthering Nixon's paranoia. After previously loosing the presidency for the Republicans in 1960 to John F. Kennedy, Nixon was inaugurated as President of the United
States on Jmiuary 21st, 1969. Nixon cmne into his presidency with the focus of ending the on
going war in Vietnam. On June 13, 1971, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon
Papers. These papers were classified Defense Department documents about the history of the Wiedenmayer 8
United States' decisions in the Vietnam War. It revealed that the government was guilty of
miscalculation, bureaucratic arrogance, and deception. The document weakened the public's
faith in Nixon, consequently hurting the wm effort. The Nixon administration attempted to
persuade the Supreme Court to end further publishing of these papers, however the Supreme
Court said it would be unconstitutional to freedom of press if they forced publishing to cease
(Zinn 360). Attorney General John Mitchell immediately sent a telegram to The New York Times
urging them to cease publishing the Pentagon Papers. Soon after, the Justice Department went to
court and issued an injunction, this prevented The New York Times from further publishing the
Pentagon Papers. The White House for the first time in history tried and successfully suppressed
freedom of the press about an international issue. However, the press would continue to dig
deeper and harder into underground White House activities and this time would not be silenced.
On June 17th, 1972, just two months before Nixon's re-election, five men were found at
2:30 a.m. in the Democratic Offices at the Watergate Hotel. They were found with a walkie- talkie, surgical gloves, cameras, tear gas guns, bugging devices and $2,300 in cash. They at first
gave false names, but when brought before a court with their own personal lawyers they revealed their identities. James W. McCord Jr. was a recently retired security consultant at the CIA. He
was also, which was not revealed in court, an ex-FBI agent, mid a former Chief of Physical
Security for the CIA, as well as working full-time for the Committee to Re-Elect the President
(CREEP) as an office security Assistmit to the Director of Security. The other four were all from
Miami: Bernard L. Barker was a former member of the FBI mid a former CIA agent who had
worked under Howard Hunt (White House Consultant). Frank A. Sturgis, the only non-Cuban
among the four, was described by a Cuban leader as a "former CIA type intended to use paid
provocateurs to fight anti-war demonstrators in the streets during the national political Wiedenmayer 9
conventions" (Bernstein 20). Virgilio R. Gonzalez mid Eugenio R. Martinez were said to have
CIA connections as well. The connections of these men created overwhelming suspicions
amongst the press. The President was notified immediately of the break in and the connections
made by the press. He immediately made a statement to the public, "The White House has had
no involvement whatever in this pmlicular incident" (Bernstein 29). The Watergate break-in
created much turmoil for the White House; it also tainted Nixon's reputation in the up-coming
re-election.
At The Washington Post Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were assigned to work on the Watergate story. Bernstein traced through Barkers phone records and found that Barker had
made fifteen calls from Miami, Florida to the CREEP (Bernstein 35). Looking through the phone
books of Barker and the other buglers, Bernstein repeatedly found Howard Hunt's name in
correspondence with the White House and immediately drew a connection from the burglars to
Howard Hunt who was a CIA retiree and now worked at the White House as a consultant to
Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President. Hunt had also worked as a paid White
House Consultant in declassifying the Pentagon Papers, and the FBI had also listed him as a
prime suspect in the Watergate investigation. The next day after a confirmative phone
conversation with Hunt, The Washington Post headlined "White House Consultant Linked to
Bugging Figure" (Bachinski Al). Due to the press' fast moving investigation, the White House
immediately began a cover-up. Ken W. Clawson, the White House deputy director of
communications, stated with, "I am convinced that neither Mr. Colson nor anyone else at the
White House had any knowledge of, or participated in, this deplorable incident at the Democratic
National Committee" (Bernstein 25). This was just one of the mmiy statements the White House
and various other officials made to create the long mid elaborate cover up. However, on Wiedenmayer 10
September 15, 1972, Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy (CREEP finmice counselor and a former aide
on the staff of the Assistant the President, John Ehrichman), and the five Watergate buglers were
indicted on federal charges for burglary, conspiracy and illegal wiretapping (Woodward, The
Final Days 458).
Woodwmd and Bernstein along with vmious other Washington Post reporters went into
intensive research on the Watergate Scandal. After calling Howard Hunt and his attorney, they
found that there had been five checks totaling $114,000, that had been deposited into the
CREEP'S campaign budget allocated as "Convention Security". Bernstein also found out, that
four of the checks, adding up to $89,000, had been moved from Mexico City, Mexico to the
CREEP account in Miami, Florida. The fifth check was for $25,000 written by Kenneth H.
Dahlberg, who worked as a fund-raiser on the committee to re-elect. Dahlberg told Woodward that he knew nothing about what the check was for except that he had given the check to Hugh
W. Slomi Jr., CREEP Treasurer mid former aide to Haldeman, who gave the check to Gordon
Liddy. After, Liddy then "exchanged the check with someone else for $25,000 in cash, which
was deposited in the Nixon campaign treasury" (Woodward Al). That someone was later
revealed to be Maurice Stans, Nixon's chief fund-raiser and the CREEP'S finmice chairmmi. In
light of this new evidence, Woodwmd and Bernstein were able to directly connect the buglers to the CREEP. They continued to find a series of other CREEP agents connected to Stan's fund,
which became know as the "slush fund". The slush fund consisted of hundreds of thousmids of
unaccounted for money totaling up to at least $350,000 that was used for bribes, pay-offs and
other politically corrupt intentions. The CREEP ignored reporting over $500,000 of campaign
contributions, breaking the new laws requiring a report of campaign funds spent mid restricting the amount of campaign contributions, as well as donations from corporations (Feinberg 31-32). Wiedenmayer 11
All this money, up to $750,000, had been laundered through Mexico to guarmitee
anonymity. The money was taken across the border and sent through a random bank in Mexico
City. From there it was sent to Washington to the cmnpaign fund. All the records of previous transactions were destroyed along with other evidence. It was later discovered that in the days
following the bre^-in Robert Mardian (cmnpaign coordinator and assistant director for the
CREEP), Fredrick LaRue (White House aide and assistant to John Mitchell), and other members
of the committee removed and destroyed documents along with memos about the bugged
conversations in the Democratic Party (Bernstein 87-90).
After, the money was laundered it was doled out to the long list of politicians involved.
As Woodward and Bernstein investigated a list of White House and CREEP members in order to
find out who exactly was involved, it became evident that "Their [the White House and CREEP
members'] fright, more than anything else, was persuading Woodward and Bernstein that the
stakes were higher than they had originally perceived" (Bernstein 60). One woman's interview,
who was a bookkeeper, started out like all the rest, "you're from The Washington Post. You'll
have to go, I'm sorry" (Bernstein 64). The bookkeeper along with may other White House
subordinates had been scared into keeping secret any facts concerning White House affairs and the Watergate break-in. Woodwmd mid Bernstein were able to get inconclusive bits and pieces
out of every person they interviewed. However, none of the people would go on record or fully
explain the story. However, as the bookkeeper became more comfortable and urgent to reveal
what was behind her fear, she told Bernstein, "There are a lot of things that are wrong and a lot
of things that are bad at the committee... I was called by the grmid jury very emly, but nobody
knew what questions to ask. People had already lied to them" (Bernstein 65). She eventually,
hesitantly confirmed that Stan's slush fund contained over $700,000 and revealed that Jeb Stumt Wiedenmayer 12
Magruder (CREEP Deputy Cmnpaign Director and former White House aide to Haldemen),
Herbert Porter (CREEP Scheduling Director and also a former aide to Haldemen), and Gordon
Liddy all had received over $50,000 in payment from the slush fund (Bernstein 75). The
payments to these three men drew a direct line to the President. Gordon Liddy had worked for
John Ehrichman, who was the Assistmit to the President for Domestic Affairs. Also Magruder
and Porter had been aides to Haldemen, who was the White House Chief of Staff mid Assistmit to the President.
In light of all the new, mnbitious evidence the reporters had to be very sure that the facts
were correct, and their sources were valid. Almost none of the interviewees would go on record,
so Woodward and Bernstein promised absolute confidentiality mid that they would only be
quoted but not identified in The Washington Post. Due to the delicate subject that they were
dealing with, ultimately accusing the president of laundering money. The Washington Post made
it imperative that in order for a criminal charge to be published in the newspaper, two sources
had to confirm it first. This is where Woodward's infamous source known as "Deep Throat"
came into play. The White House had been hard at work covering up their paper trail by
laundering money, shredding documents, and denying association. As more information from
sources came in the buglers connection kept going higher up the chain of commmid. Woodward's
secret source, "Deep Throat", "was the FBI's second ranking official; He could never be quoted -
- even as an mionymous source — and he would not provide information. He would 'confirm
information that had been obtained elsewhere mid . . . add some perspective'" (Drehle Al).
Despite the White House's constant cover up "Deep Throat" "urged Woodward to follow the
case to the top: to Nixon's former attorney general, John N. Mitchell; to Nixon's inner brace of
aides, H.R. 'Bob' Haldeman and John H. Ehrlichman; mid even to Nixon himself (Drehle Al). Wiedenmayer 13
It was revealed on July 13, 1973 that Nixon had a secret recording system in the Oval
Office that was voice activated. Haldeman claimed that Nixon "was worried that in private,
head-to-head meetings, he did not want the burden on himself of having to be the only recorder
of that meeting" (Matthews 299). On April 11, 1973 the House Judicimy Committee voted,
"thirty -three to three, to issue a subpoena for forty two additional tapes" (Woodward, The Final
Days 124). The White House tried to reason by offering abridged transcripts, but on August 29,
1873 Judge Sirica, the judge appointed to the Watergate trial, ruled that the President must turn
over the subpoenaed tapes. However, the tapes had been altered. In a conversation on June 20, three days after the break-in, held between the President and Haldeman about the burglary, there
was found to be a suspicious 18-_ min gap. Finally on March 1, 1974 the grand jury indicted
"Haldeman, Ehrlichmmi, Mitchell, Robert Mardian, Charles W. Colson, Gordon Strachan mid
Kenneth W. Parkinson in the cover-up. Richard Nixon is named an unindicted co-conspirator by the grand jury" (Woodward, The Final Days 460). On August 9, 1974, ten days after the House
passed the final mticle of impeachment for obstruction of justice in attempting to cover-up
Watergate, Nixon resigned.
Before Watergate the press turned their heads away from suspicious activity protecting the president from scandal, but after Watergate their attention turned to reveal the scandals and
corruption underneath mi administration. During Kennedy's presidency "reporters dined out on
rumors of Kennedy's adultery as they made sure those stories were kept out of the newspapers"
(Yoffe Al). Emily Yoffe of Slate magazine wrote, "if John F. Kennedy were president today, he
wouldn't be". Kennedy in comparison to Nixon, "had done more wire taps, Kennedy had
conducted more illegal surveillance" however, in the Watergate Scandal the media changed the
way the presidency was viewed with an "all-out attack" on Nixon (Matthews 325). He was first Wiedenmayer 14
accused of involvement in illegal activities, and then his criminal affairs escalated to his cover-
up consisting of void statements and wiretaps. The coverage of presidential scmidals has changed
due to the change in the rules of the press, as Ben Bradlee states, "For almost two hundred years the sex lives of politicimis- especially presidents mid presidential candidates- were left to the
historians. However, the old rules have changed, and the new rules guaranteed scrutiny by the
press if they god wind of miy ongoing extra curricular sexual escapades" (Bradlee 479). "Today
"people like to see the king fall", and the press will go to that extent to dig up information to
make that happen (Kurtz CI). Most recently, the rumors of Bill Clinton's affairs with Monica
Lewinsky, unlike Kennedy's affairs, turned into his impeachment trial. During Kennedy's
administration, the stature of a president was something to aspire to, a role model. It was
"extremely difficult to turn suspicion into confirmation, especially if you don't want to" (Bradlee
483). However, after Watergate that changed, and the press was willing to and exercised their
full right to freedom of press by going at an investigation with full force.
The jumbled details of what actually happened have caused controversy among
historians. Paul Johnson's conservative point of view diverges from other historians on the
motivation behind Watergate. He concludes that the Democrats who were upset and frightened
by the Nixon's triumph in the 1972 election planned the whole scandal. He believes that "the aim
was to use publicity to reverse the electoral verdict of 1972, which was felt to be, in some
metaphorical sense illegitimate - rather as conservative Germans had regarded Weimm as
illegitimate" (Johnson, Modem Times 650). In order to reverse the verdict the whole break-in
and coverage was controlled by the pro "amnesty, pot, abortion confiscation of wealth (unless it
is theirs)" Democrats (Johnson, Modem Times 649). However, Howmd Zinn views the scmidal
differently, he affirms that because of the "unforeseen arrest by police unaware of the high-level Wiedenmayer 15 connections of the burglars, the information was out to the public before anyone could stop it"
(Zinn 398). Thus immediately forcing the President and Mitchell to lie to the public about their involvement. Therefore, if it was not for the unawmeness of the police the whole scmidal would not have been so widely covered, ultimately leading to infractions committed by the president and his officials.
Watergate left a legacy in the media, changing the way that presidencies would be viewed for generations to come. The investigation of the Watergate Scandal was unprecedented.
For centuries corruption in the White House was overlooked, giving the country a false sense of security. However, the news and media has drastically chmiged, unafraid of revealing the truth, and possibly leading to impeachment. Since Watergate, reporters fully exercised their right to freedom of press, mid their right has not been denied since.
TRANSCRIPTION
Interviewee/Narrator: Benjamin Bradlee
Interviewer: Jill Wiedenmayer Wiedenmayer 16
Location: The Washington Post, Washington D.C.
Date: December 12, 2005
Jill Wiedenmayer: This is Jill Wiedenmayer and I mn interviewing Ben Bradlee as a part of the
American Century Oral History Project. The interview took place on December 12, 2005 at The
Washington Post.
Benjamin Bradlee: ... And who's husband ran it for a while until he... well he was a manic
depressive it turns out, and took his life. And so suddenly in her [Katherine Grahmn ] early in
her emly forties she he had to decide what she was going to do when she grew up and whether
she was going to sell the paper or take it over and try to run it. And she, in the first six or eight
months she began to hear that it wasn't quiet as good as she thought it was mid by this time I'd
had something to do with The Washington Post buying Newsweek. I had worked at Newsweek.
And so she asked me to lunch, after fussing around about where the hell should she t^e me so that I wouldn't have to pay. So she took me to some dreadful club that she belonged to mid we
became very involved with each other, very good friends, mid dependent on each other in a real
sense. Luck pays a big role in all of this. We had a story called the Pentagon Papers in which The
Post was able to play mi important role. Not as important as The New York Times in that case,
but important. And then thmiks to President Nixon, we had Watergate mid that really put us on the map really big. And the rest of it seems to just happen.
JW: Would you say that Katherine Graham gave you the biggest opportunities?
After Graham's father's death she acquired control of The Washington Post. She became President of r/;ePo5? and then was Chairman of the Executive Committee until her death on July 17, 2001. Wiedenmayer 17
BB: Sure. Hands down. The other opportunities, a lot of them were forced. Like WWII was
forced and that seems so far back in history to you, but that was a big deal to me. I mean I was
your age perhaps. How old are you now?
JW: I'm seventeen.
BB: Well, I was twenty, when I went off to war. I hadn't made any choices at that, I went mid
had a very interesting time in the Pacific Ocean on a destroyer for three and half years. I couldn't
find ajob afterwards if you want the truth, because there was a law that said all veterans were
entitled to their jobs, job that they had held when they went off to war. Well I didn't have ajob
when I went off to wm I just graduated from college, mid I didn't want to go back to college, I
had my degree. So I couldn't find ajob. So I finally heard of a bunch of younger people who
were starting a paper in New Hmnpshire and I went with them mid I had a marvelous time with them. But we went broke and the paper was sold. And it was then that I hooked up with The
Washington Post. I god ajob here, and I stayed here. I was very inexperienced despite two years
spent with the Weekly in New Hampshire. I was very inexperienced to be a reporter, but I had
people who helped me a lot.
JW: at Harvard did you know what you wmited to do?
BB: Oh at Harvard. You know at Harvard I screwed up at Harvard because I arrived at Harvard the day that Hitler moved into Polmid and the Sudetenland and so as freshman we were Wiedenmayer 18
confronted with the fact that we were going to war. Sure as God made apples and that was not terribly conducive to... You know, I didn't study all day long and I goofed, I didn't goof, I had an
interesting time at college, but I would of loved to have gone to college when I was a serious
student but I went when I was a not very serious young, probably young for my age, about to go to war. So that fouled that experience up. It made it interesting but I didn't learn a hell of a lot.
JW: Who or what gave you your greatest opportunity?
BB: Well, I guess Uncle Smn. Very soon in the war I was, I had been in the ROTC at Harvmd,
and it wasn't very long before, we were. I was just twenty-one years old, I was driving that thing
around, it was twenty-one hundred tons, it went thirty-eight miles and hour, it was three hundred
feet long and thirty feet wide and it had a lot of guns and torpedoes mid stuff like that, its not
what I was trained for but there I was doing it. And by the time I got out of there I was only... twenty-four I guess. I felt that I had accomplished certain things that made me... gave me a real
shot at success or whatever I did.
JW: Would you say that being in the navy changed the way you felt about reporting on certain topics?
BB: I don't know about that. Because if you went to cover a murder trial or to question a slum
landlord, which is my early assignments. The fact is it didn't have miything to do with the navy. I
might of had something to do with giving me confidence, and stuff like that. No, it was a very
maturing experience lets say that for the war. It made me a grown up fairly fast. Wiedenmayer 19
JW: Well, what about the papers?
BB: Well, Pentagon Papers, yeah that was such an interesting story. Because the government
rather foolishly made it top secret. And it described things that had happened between 1951 or
1952 and 1967. And this was '69, so what the hell was the great secret about it. But they wanted to make it a secrete. And as you know, you've studied this; The New York Times got a hold of the
report. Classified, top secret, mid all that stuff. And they stmled to print it and we died, we died,
we just didn't have it mid it was very importmit that The New York Times was not going to be as
good as we were, and yet they were better than we were for a while, and then we got our own
copy. And then the big problem was will the federal government allow us to print it. And a
federal judge in New York had ruled that New York Times couldn't print it. And so when the
editors and the lawyers mid the owners here were confronted with a problem. Okay you've got it
now you want to print it, but hasn't this judge decided that it's against the law? And our problem
was to convince Katherine Graham that she was not bound by a New York judge, that it was a
New York judge that could tell her that she couldn't print what ever the hell she wanted to print.
The District of Columbia judge could. So we had some pushing and shoving over that. And she
finally one day she just said, "Okay, the hell with it. Let's do it, I'm going to do it". And that was
a marvelous point in the history of this paper. It made everyone super cohesive and it gave her
great confidence in us. And we were thrilled by her. She behaved with an enormous mnount of
guts.
JW: Would you say this tenacious style of reporting was typical at the time? Wiedenmayer 20
BB: Oh yeah, that's a little bit personality it think, its mine. I get motivated by finding the answer to things that I don't know the answer to. But I also get doubly motivated when people tell me I
cant do it, your not aloud to, or your not good enough to, or something like that. It m^es me put
my nose down and my arse up and push ^ead even more.
JW: Do you think that same motivation helped Woodward and Bernstein?
BB: Yeah, well yeah. Woodward especially. I see things in Woodwmd that embarrass me, that
were so me, I think in the early days. Carl Bernstein is different, he's sort of a hippie. And I came
along to late to be a hippie, but they were a wonderful pair together. They complimented each
other in a good way.
JW: What was your relationship with them before Watergate?
BB: Well, I memi they were young, they were in their twenties, I was in my forties. So they were
really young enough... Well I guess they were in their late twenties. And I was forty... four, so they were a lot younger. Well not young enough to be my children, but they were very young
and very new in the business. And that gave me some problems here, because the veterans here
said, "Well they did find, starting the story, but now why don't you give it to us, and let us do it".
Which I didn't do, because they were going so great, they were right.
JW: Them being so young mid inexperienced, did that change your trust with them? Wiedenmayer 21
BB: It took them longer to earn it probably, but on the other hand, with people telling me I
shouldn't trust them and when I did and they turned out to be right and the other people turned
out to be wrong, I think we locked into each other more than natural. I mean they
made one mistake in four hundred stories for god s^es, its just appalling.
JW: Could you recall the driving force behind the investigation, like what motivated it do you think?
BB: Well I think very very soon we realized that people in the highest reaches of government,
including the president were lying. You know that's pretty series.
JW: On June 22, 1972, The Washington Post headlined, "Employer of 2 Tied to Bugging raised
Money for Nixon" (see Appendix 3). And connecting Nixon very early to the scandal. Did that
make you nervous?
BB: Not nervous, excited.
JW: Really?
BB: Well it made me doubly or triply if that were possible, to be sure that we were right. If
you're lucky enough to have the President of the United States as the object of your inquiry mid
he's lying mid your find out about it and you prove it, you have mi awful lot going for you. That Wiedenmayer 22
was a fabulous time. You don't remember it because you weren't there, that story had this town
by the throat, I mean people talked about nothing else, in my crowd. You get on the bus or you
get on the subway or you get in cab, they were talking about it, the radio had it on. And I've
never seen it happen again.
JW: How did you feel about making those connections so early on in the investigation?
BB: Well, we felt unbelievably excited the first three or four weeks because we found that it
involved the White House, the money that was in the pockets of the burglars, we knew where that came from, and that was the Committee to Re-elect the President. We all of a sudden we
went so far so soon. It took us right up to the White House. But, it was an election year, and a lot
of people were saying, "Oh that's just The Post they're all commies down there". And President
Nixon was re-elected with an enormous majority, and so we were very discouraged soon after that. But then Judge Sirica came in and it went in to the courts, and from the courts into the
Senate, it just turned out that we were right and they were wrong.
JW: How did you overcome the excessive denials from the White House?
BB: Well, I'd gotten use to people lying to me. I think reporters get use to that early on. When
Nixon... I mean I can still see that face, the first time he went on the television to talk about
Watergate. He said that he couldn't tell all the details because it involved-1 can hem his voice
"matters of national security" (Nixon impersonation). And that was bullshit. It didn't, it didn't. If the President of the United States to tell this country, war, the Russimis were coming and the Wiedenmayer 23
atomic bombs were coming, if he told the truth. Bologna. And it's hard to understand, it was
hmd for me to understand that President of the United States could lie to you like that.
JW: And you could just tell by...?
BB: Well we began to prove that his statements, to find evidence that his statements were wrong, that it didn't involve national security, it involved other things. It was just so obvious, it was
obvious to everybody, the whole country knew he was lying in the end.
JW: What do you think of Charles Rangel's assumption, "That some people would say it was a
great moment for the press, but others would say not it created this whole tribe of little
Woodwmds and Bemsteins trying to bring down Presidents"?
BB: (laughs) Well I don't know where Chmlie Rangel said that. But sure, it was just a story. But
it was right and it involved the President of the United States and it forced the President out of
office for the first time in the history of our country. So it made alot of young journalist, would
be journalists eager to share some of the glamour and glory that Woodward mid Bernstein were
facing. But there are editors who can control those journalists. If you were a young journalist and
you said, "Boy I know how to do this, I'm going to right a story that says, 'despite overwhelming
evidence to country, the president today lied in front of the...'" you know, editors wouldn't you
do that.
JW: Do you think it made journalism more popular? Wiedenmayer 24
BB: Yes, a lot more popular, and a lot more popular, the stunning things to me was the number
of people your age who got swept up into it. And the number, especially women who came into journalism, and rode that wave through college and into journalism. People who got out of
college in the early seventies, seventy-five, seventy-six, it attracted a very good class of
congressmen. The congressmen who were elected at that time were all highly motivated and
highly patriotic, and moral people.
JW: You said it created a wave of women journalists?
BB: Well there weren't many women journalist before that. Again, I'm talking only about The
Post. There was a wave of women journalists who came into The Post in fhe forties. Because the
guys all had gone to war. And they needed reporters and they couldn't find reporters, so there
were a handful, not a wave, but there was a hmidful, six or seven, in this newspaper, which had
about maybe a hundred reporters, eight or ten percent of them were women. Because it wasn't a
profession that women considered. But as a result of Watergate, the younger women that were in
college during Watergate and then were joining the job core, the job pool, in seventy-four,
seventy-five. There was a lot of women. They were very good writers. I have to admit that young
women seemed to be better writers than young men at that stage of their lives.
JW: In your book you said that you thought the words, "according to sources" weren't good
enough for citations. Wiedenmayer 25
BB: No, its bad. You take what you can get. If somebody is giving you really important vital
information, and for reasons best know to him that you know and understmid, you are faced with
a problem, but you can do better that "according to sources". You can often amplify that. Is the
source male or female? Is he... if it's a he, is he military or civilian? Is he navy or army? Is he a
democrat or republicmi? Is he obvious from the south? Is he white or black? Is he, if he's talking
about Israel; is he Jewish or not Jewish? There are all sorts of things that you can say. According to a source that works in the state department, verses a source that works in the defense
department.
JW: Did you feel that smne way with Deep Throat?
BB: Deep Throat was a source that talked to Woodward only on the condition that he'd never be
identified. And so this is a case when we inherited a restriction given by a post reporter, to
protection, to a source. I mean, I didn't give it to him. And I probably would of, I know I would
of given it to him eventually, but I probably would of tried to say, "Can't you do better than just a
source". You can do better.
JW: On July 12, 1972, The Washington Post headlined. "A Mysterious 'Mr. X' Enters 'Bugging'
Probe" (see Appendix 1-2). Are there...
BB: I don't even remember that story. June '72? July?
JW: July 12, 1972 Wiedenmayer 26
BB: Yeah that was right after the break in.
JW: Yeah, and well "Mr. X", the court had to keep him secret from the public. How did you feel about not revealing who people were to the public?
BB: Well, I don't like that. And I don't remember that pmticular story. I remember quoting somebody, a source that was known inside The Post as Deep Throat, but as I said, you try to give as much specificity as you can to the source. If you can't you cmi't. You've got to then decide, will I go in totally blind like that. Say just a source.
JW: In your opinion, how do you think Deep Throat's secrecy was kept so long?
BB: So few people knew it.
JW: Were you surprised when he was revealed?
BB: I think we were all surprised that it stayed as long. But for yems it was... I didn't know until after the president resigned, I didn't know until '74. And I was the third person to know. Well maybe I was the forth, because Woodwmd told his wife. And for years it was the first three, and when I knew four. But I knew in '74 and I was the last one until it all came out, I never told my wife. Wiedenmayer 27
JW: Were there any close calls?
BB: Well it was so tight, four people know, two of them are living together, and there is
absolutely know interest in my part in telling. Woodward and Bernstein, they made a career of
Deep Throat. Deep Throat made them much more interesting, to have this mystery source like this and let everybody guess. My god books were written. Books. Many books written
identifying different people as Deep Throat.
JW: What do you think of Michael Beschloss' statement that, "every President since Richard
Nixon has been overshadowed by at least the possibility of a political scandal, sometimes used
by their opponents"?
BB: Well there have been a lot of political scmidals. That's for sure. I don't know, the question that I wrestle with is, how mmiy scandals were there in the Roosevelt administration? He was
president when I was your age, and I didn't learn a whole lot of scandals about him. And there
was some scmidals... There was the Teapot Dome story, and that was a big scandal. That
probably was not because there were no scandals, we just didn't know about them, and the reason
we didn't know about them is that there was no culture in which journalists were interested in
scandal. And there weren't that mmiy journalists. When president Roosevelt gave a press
conference there were thirteen White House correspondents. Twelve men mid one woman. Mary
Craig was the woman. She cmi from Portland. She had a big round hat with all sorts of frills on it
(motioning the size and the frills with his hands). And she was (laughs)... Sort of a frumpy Wiedenmayer 28
looking dame (laughing). It's so funny to think of it. Now you go to a press conference and there's a thousand people there.
JW: Do you think it was that they didn't know about the scandals, or they just didn't want to
reveal them?
BB: Well nobody wants to reveal scandals if it's going to really cost them. God knows, think if
Nixon could take all of that back he'd still be president today for god sakes. No, I mean I think... there is this great phrase in the bible that says, "the truth shall set you free", and I believe that. If
you do believe in that, you believe in maximum disclosure. And there are a lot of people who
don't wmit maximum disclosure in this town. Are you a native Washingtonian?
JW: Yeah, I was bom in D.C.
BB: When where you bom?
JW: 1988
BB: Yeah okay. Well there are a lot of people who don't wmit the truth out. They think they do, they say they do. But they certain don't want the truth about them out.
JW: There have been a lot of -gates since Watergate. Well there was Clinton. Do you think
Watergate made it so journalists want to reveal all these scandals? Wiedenmayer 29
BB: Certainly journalists are more awme if you have a role in uncovering a role in a major
scandal, it's going to make you more famous than otherwise. I mean you're here because of the
Watergate Scmidal. And your mother wasn't going around talking to editors, probably. Certainly
mine wasn't. I think there's a danger that goes with that. That young reporters think that they can take a short cut to that. And so to create a scandal. And write a story as if it was totally
scandalous, when maybe it isn't scandalous, or they cmi't prove it's scmidalous. So I think it
behooved editors to pay even more attention to the copy, to be sure that the sources were good,
and that the stories were really true.
JW: So you think that certain journalists are more focused on scandals mid not the exact details
and wmit to make a scandal?
BB: I think they are awfully receptive to stories of scandal. But what's one person's scandal is
another person's crime. If somebody is robbing a bank, it isn't really a scmidal, it's a crime. It
becomes scandalous if the guy is the chairman of the board of his church or something like that.
Or has a reputation for great probity. The President of the United States had that.
JW: What do you think of Paul Johnson's belief that "the imperial presidency was replaced by the imperial press"?
BB: Oh I don't know. I think there are people that me saying that the press got full of itself, and
is swaging around town. But I don't know if that's true. The press did get more important. And Wiedenmayer 30 there's programs now like Meet the Press. In the first place you've added television to it all,
you've added thousands of hours of "news". It's so much more than it use to be. And the public is
so much better educated. I think that's an excuse in itself for being for all of the new openness.
JW: What are a few things that you think have chmiged the most about journalism?
BB: Well, I'm going to surprise you (interviewer laughs). One of the things that is the most new
is the design of newspapers. Newspapers are now quite easy to read. I mean the front pages of
newspapers (looking around). The front pages of the sports section (picks up the sports section of
The New York Times). They're really good looking and they're well designed. A lot of them are
designed by women incidentally (shuffling through papers). And in the old days the newspapers
(holding up the first page of The New York Times), The New York Times especially. This is six
columns, there me six different columns, it use to be eight columns, so they were jammed in together. And there were no pictures at all on page one. You looked at it you, "Oh my god it will take me a month to read that". And so I think that's a big thing. The other thing is that I think the
reporters are infinitely better educated. Fifty years ago, as many reporters never went to
college, as went to college. I think that the young people, first place as I said there are a lot more
women than before, I think that the writing is much better. The writing in some of the old
newspapers that you read is unintelligible. And I think that people don't like newspapers all that
much more. And people don't like to say that they like newspapers, but they really do
(interviewer laughs). When no one is looking they like to read it. I remember, we've all go
anecdotes on how important; there came a time when all news radio started in Washington.
There was a station, two I think, that just nothing but news, around the clock news. It used to Wiedenmayer 31
fascinate me, because I am such news junkie, that I would listen to this. These programs, WTOP,
had all news radio. And in the early morning, I would listen to them, and then suddenly you
could hear something. And what you heard was this (turns a newspaper page). And the guy was
reading the newspaper. And the reason he was reading the newspapers was that the reporters for the all news radio station didn't come in until ten o'clock. And they went on the radio at six
o'clock, so they had four hours to fill. That's just were they got their news, and that's still where they get their news. There's a conference everyday, for CBS news for instmice, it's a ten o'clock.
And they decide what they're going to run on the nightly news show. Which is only twenty
minutes, it isn't all that big a goddamn deal. But what stories they're going to work on. And what they start with is the morning The New York Times and the morning The Post. And that in other
words, right there those two newspapers, in this town those two newspapers set the agenda for
what's going to be discussed on radio, on television news, in congress, on the streets. You got a
good sexy crime going on here, mid the town is talking about it. They're getting the news, in the
first instance, from the papers. So the papers are doing fine.
JW: Do you think the newspapers have a bigger role now because of all the television?
BB: Well I don't go that far. I think they're better; the good newspapers are better than they've
ever been. Now there are a few of them. But that isn't all that damn bad if you think of it. Why
does there have to be seventy-five hundred daily newspapers in the country. When at a time,
when there are seventy-five hundred say television radio newscasts all day. Back in the time
when there were seventy-five hundred newspapers there weren't any television mid radio. So I think a hmid full of good newspapers me better than they've ever been. Specifically The Times, Wiedenmayer 32
The Post, I fhmkBoston Global has become a very good paper, L.A. Times a little bit less.
JW: If you could write a high school history text book...
BB: God no.
JW: Well...
BB:IfI could. Okay.
JW: If you could write a section on Watergate what would you say?
BB: Watergate was the purposeful lying to the public about events by American leaders. I don't know how to boil it down to a sentence. Just 'cause the president says its so doesn't mean its so is one way of doing it. Just 'cause the bank says its so doesn't mean its so. Or just because just because all of these big shots with position mid access to newspapers. I taught a course at
Georgetown, called "How to read a Newspaper" once. I said that I thought I could read a story in a newspaper and find a lie on page one. Something that the reporter was saying mid he was quoting somebody who didn't know the truth, or his was misquoting somebody. And I god these kids, no much older than you, they just loved that game. And they went through the papers this way, and they could find one or two lies on the front page of The New York Times or The Post everyday. Even though the lie might be the President of the United States saying, "I can't tell you about Watergate because it involves matters of national security", that was a lie. It generally Wiedenmayer 33 takes a little bit longer than over night to prove it's a lie. People are talking about things they
don't know anything about. People don't want the truth out because it involves a scandal, so they
lie about that. Think of Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky, my god. Looks the world in the
eyes mid say, "I did not have sexual relations with that"... And poor Monica Lewinsky, there she
is, I must say I feel sorry for her. I mean so she was flirting with the President of the United
States that's pretty heady stuff. But she (laughs) had no right to expect it. That she'd get in that
kind of trouble.
JW: About "How to Read a Newspaper", and finding the lies, do you think you could have been
able to find the same amount of lies in the front page thirty years ago?
BB: I don't know if I can answer that. I certainly wasn't motivated to do it. Because thirty years
ago I was more trusting of authority than I am now. I mean I really didn't encompass the
possibility that the President of the United States would lie.
JW: Well no so much the president, but journalist. Like miss-citing things or...
BB: Well if they misquote and it's a mistake that's why correction columns are so prevalent now
[Holds up the second page of The New York Times]. This space here, corrections for the record,
never existed. Newspapers never admitted they were wrong. And normally, that's only two in today's paper; normally they have eight or ten. Some of them me little bullshit things like
misspellings. And the age given wasn't nineteen it was twenty, or something like that, that's silly. Wiedenmayer 34
JW: Is there anything that you think I missed that you think would help me?
BB: Oh god you missed eighty-three years of my life (both laugh). No, I memi sure. I'm sure there's things that both of us missed. But you have a sense of how I feel generally about the
subject.
JW: Well could you tell me a little more about yourself, like about your childhood?
BB: I was bom in Boston. My father was an All-Americmi football player. And a banker who
went broke in the depression. And my mother had a little dress shop in Boston. And I went to
college on a scholarship, and I went to war. And I went to New Hampshire. And I got ajob at
The Post. And then I wanted to be a foreign correspondent because I thought that was so cool. I thought that was a great... There were great movies written about foreign correspondents and their adventures were very glamorous. And then I went to Europe. So I went to Europe first to
work for Newsweek. And then I had a child who started to spe^ American with a French accent
(both laugh). So I said "We got to get this little sucker home" (laugher). And cmne back and got
ajob here at The Post. And I've been here ever since.
JW: What exactly did you do as a foreign correspondent?
BB: Well I was lucky in one sense because I worked for Newsweek. Newsweek was then the
resolutely number two-news magazine. It wasn't like Time. You didn't say time you said Time Wiedenmayer 35
Life. So whatever news event you went to cover they went six or seven strong. And they always
had, which I envied more than anything else, was they had somebody which in... Do you speak
French at all? They had somebody called a "gar^on on des eux", who was an older man
generally, but he did all the little stuff. He got the hotel reservations and he got the, where did
you file your copy, rent the cars and do all of that stuff that takes so long. And if you were doing
it yourself, as I was, because I was the only person for Newsweek, So we had to work a lot
hmder. But history happens on everyday of the week, but news magazines come out on the same
day every week. So often we would fly into Alger, say if there was something there, and you
land on the Friday morning and you would have to file the story Friday night. Because the
deadline was Friday night. So that was doubly exciting to have to do it under the pressure
of a deadline. Deadlines are very interesting things. There are five of them per day. Here there
are five issues of every paper. So as soon as you get up in the morning you're facing a deadline that's twelve hours away. And then another one thirteen hours away. And then another, there just
an hour apmt all night. It's exciting, it is very exciting. And I've been excited by it for a long time (both laugh).
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
Journalist Mmk Feldstein believed that, "As important as Watergate was in political
history, it was perhaps equally so in journalism history" (Feldstein Al). Watergate has been
remembered in history as the scandal that brought down the President of the United States for the
first time in American history. However, less noticeably it has been remembered as an example
of journalism working at its best. Although documentation of the events that took place during Wiedenmayer 36 the Nixon administration me importmit historical facts, the opinions and views of people who
lived during that time is even more important. Oral history is an important component of
documenting history because it contributes a personal perspective to historical events. The
insight of the interviewee gives opinions and views that normal textbooks cannot express. In
addition, oral history reveals interesting inside stories not revealed in normal historic documents.
While history books "provide the who, what, when, and where of history; interviews can offer
better insights into the how and why" (Ritchie 36). The oral history interview with Mr. Bradlee is
a good exmnple of an in depth personal analysis that is revealed through his first hand
experience. Mr. Bradlee's position at The Washington Post as Vice President at Lmge puts him at
a higher status, and giving him more knowledge of the events during the Nixon Administration than most people who lived during that time. However, due to Mr. Bradlee's point of view from
The Washington Post, he is inclined to have a different opinion of the meaning of the Watergate
Scandal and role of the press. Personal opinions add mi interesting twist to otherwise historical
fact, not all opinions are valid. Arthur Schlesinger believes that a historian's goal is to
objectively record history, but objective history is unattainable due to unconscious
preconceptions and background factors such as race, gender, age, and nationalism. (Schlesinger
53). Mr. Bradlee has been working at The Washington Post for over forty years, which makes his
opinions on the subject valid, therefore adding more value to his interview. Mr. Bradlee has
lived the majority of his life in direct contact with the press, for that reason he is able to
accurately portray the progression of journalism and describe the effects the Watergate Scmidal
has had on the press today. Therefore the historical significance of Mr. Bradlee's interview is to
give an accurate opinion on how the Watergate Scandal changed the role of the press, thus
dictating how the public views presidents today. Wiedenmayer 37
The seventies were a very interesting time for journalism and the evolution of the journalist's duties. Vmious scandals had begun to surface during the Nixon administration.
Mr. Bradlee had a deep involvement and interest in journalism. Beginning the journey in
his job at a small newspaper in New Hampshire to his current position as The Washington
Posts Vice President at Large. At the beginning of the interview, Mr. Bradlee immediately
began talking about Katherine Grahmn, the former owner of The Washington Post at the time. They had a very close relationship and to this day he admires her courage mid
strength in difficult political situations. He felt that Katherine Graham was a pioneer in the
Pentagon Papers story, printing the classified files against the order of a New York Judge.
Mr. Bradlee said that this dogmatism was typical at the time for reporters, however it is
more centered in personality. He saw that same motivation in Woodward and Bernstein and
feels the same way when he is driving investigations. What drove the Watergate
investigation was the prompt revelation that senior officials of the executive branch were
lying. Mr. Bradlee explained how the story took off within a couple of weeks, discovering that the White House mid the Committee to Re-elect the President were involved, and
proving that the president's statements were lies. Mr. Bradlee felt that this was an important
historical event because for the first time in history the diligent work of a journalist forced the President to resign. The investigation of the Watergate story inspired the press in
covering politics. Mr. Bradlee believed that since Watergate, journalism has become
increasingly popular. Many people went straight into journalism right out of college. This
wave of interest in journalism also brought many great women journalists. This was in
contrast to the forties when only about 6% of journalists were women.
The revelation of the identity Deep Throat and the use of secret sources has recently Wiedenmayer 38
spmked the interest of the public and the press. However some question whether reporters
should rely as much they do on the words "according to sources". Mr. Bradlee believes that the words "according to sources" are not enough; because there are so many other ways a
source can be specified, such as nationality or profession. However, in the special case of
Deep Throat, absolute secrecy was needed. The protection of the Deep Throat's identity
was imperative to conceal his high position in the FBI, which gave him the ability to reveal
secret information about the Watergate story.
Since the Watergate Scandal, there have been more White House scandals revealed then
ever before. It was not until twenty years after Kennedy died that his sexual affairs were revealed
(Wiedenmayer 6). Michael Beschloss believes that Watergate has changed the media as well as the political world in that, "ever President since Richard Nixon has been overshadowed by at
least the possibility of a political scandal" (Wiedenmayer 27). Watergate has triggered a whole
serious of -gates since, such as Filegate and Irangate . However, Mr. Bradlee argues that there
were many scandals before Nixon. There were numerous scandals during the Roosevelt
administration and the Hmding administration," Well there have been a lot of political scandals.
That's for sure. I don't know, the question that I wrestle with is, how mmiy scandals were there in the Roosevelt administration" (Wiedenmayer 27). Therefore, Beschloss is right that there have
been more scandals revealed, but what Bradlee argues is that there were just as many scandals
before, but they just were kept secret. Before Watergate, journalists were not as interested in
scandals. Only about thirteen journalists would attend at press conferences. While now there are
The illegal possession and scrutiny of 300 to 900 FBI files by the Clinton Administration without the file's subjects permissiojermission Refers to the Iran-Contra affair. The UniteUni d States sold weapons to Iran and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. (A.K.A. Contragate) Wiedenmayer 39 thousands of people at President Roosevelt's' press conferences. Mr. Bradlee came to the
conclusion that journalists today dictate what they want in the newspaper.
Today Journalists are more aware of scandals, in hopes of becoming famous, like
Woodwmd and Bernstein. Mr. Bradlee feels that many people masquerade by saying that they
want the truth, but in reality they are against "maximum disclosure" (Wiedenmayer 28). This
statement agrees with historian Eric Alterman's view. He believes that, "Dishonesty has become
so pervasive a part of our public discourse that in some cases, the very same people who pose as
defenders of the absolute truth feel no compunction about relying on deception to do so"
(Wiedenmayer 5). Mr. Bradlee says that journalists me more aware of the consequences of
certain actions; therefore they may stretch a crime into a scandal in hopes of the possibility of
fame. However, Mr. Bradlee believes that "the truth shall set you free", and today journalists do
not seem to be as concerned with the truth, but more about what story could become a scandal
(Wiedenmayer 28). Although the public would like to believe that everything printed in the
newspaper is true, the newspapers have the power to "write a story as if it was totally scandalous,
when maybe it isn't scandalous, or they cmi't prove it's scmidalous" (Wiedenmayer 29). Mr.
Bradlee therefore believes that people should be more skeptical of what they read or hem.
Everyday there are lies, though not major ones, on the front page of the newspaper. For example,
Watergate and recent presidencies, such as the Clinton presidency, have proven that presidents
don't always tell the truth. However, Zinn believes that the press has other motives for printing
scandalous stories. Zinn believes that the "Mass circulation of magazines fostered mi atmosphere
of revenge" (Zinn 519). Although this may be proven true through the numerous attacks on
Nixon, such as by the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, Mr. Bradlee believes that this power the
press has acquired has only made the newspapers more careful, "So I think it behooved editors to Wiedenmayer 40
pay even more attention to the copy, to be sure that the sources were good, and that the stories
were really true" (Bradlee 29). Therefore the progression of journalism has changed the power of the press. The press is more powerful, as exemplified in Nixon and Clinton's presidencies, to the
extent where the press can bring down a president.
Along with the role of the press, many other elements of the media have chmiged.
Mr. Bradlee believes that the print press has become more extensive and more imperative to educating the public. Therefore, other media, such as radio mid television, has become
dependent on newspapers, increasing the role of newspapers mid the importance of good
reporting. Bradlee believes that there are a few good newspapers that "set the agenda for
what's going to be discussed on radio, on television news, in Congress, on the streets"
(Wiedenmayer 31). Even though it is not evident, radio and television rely heavily on the
newspapers and the wire services. Paul Johnson agrees that the media industry has become
increasingly more powerful. He believes that Watergate only became a big scandal
because, "the Post had Watergate stories on its front page seventy-nine times during the
election and from October 10th began a publication of series of 'investigative' mticles
seeking to make the Watergate burglmy a more moral issue" (Johnson, A History of the
American People 900). This means that the power of the press has changed. Due to the
formatting of the newspaper and the stories printed the front page, newspapers can dictate
which crimes are more serious, and can ultimately turn into a presidential scmidal.
The cause of the growing number of scandals in presidential administrations is debatable.
It has been revealed that numerous presidents such as Roosevelt and Kennedy had sexual affairs
while in the White House. However, during that time these scandals were not revealed. Paul
Johnson believes that, "working journalists protected Roosevelt on a large number of occasions. Wiedenmayer 41
over his love affairs and many other matters. They did the same - mid more - for Kennedy"
(Johnson, A History of the American People 898). Although Mr. Bradlee acknowledges the
unrevealed scandals of past presidents he claims, "there was no culture for journalists to be
interested in scandal" (Wiedenmayer 27). He goes on to explain that during the Roosevelt
administration there were fewer journalists, and even fewer concerned with presidential matters.
Although these two opinions contrast on the reported scandal of former presidents, they both
agree that the Watergate investigation was the catalyst in the transformation of journalism.
The oral history project has taught me the difference between historical text and oral
history. A person's personal experience is a vital in addition to historical fact. Mr. Bradlee lived through the Depression, WWII, the Vietnmn War, and hundreds of stories that went in and out of the newspaper headlines. His interview gave first hand accounts of the power of the press mid
personal stories that would not be found in any other archive. He explained the lack of journalists prior to Watergate, and their lack of interest in political scandals. He believes that the
weakness of journalists today is that they are too thirsty for a scandal to achieve recognition. On the other hmid, Mr. Bradlee pointed out that the writing and organization of journalism currently
is better than ever before. During Mr. Bradlee's interview he said that his favorite quote to live
by is, "the truth shall set you free" (Wiedenmayer 16). That biblical reference stands true when judging the progress the journalism. The truth about the past is validated by oral history, which
bears witness by the participmits in history. Wiedenmayer 42 Wiedenmayer 43
JyJuiiM»oWisliiii(i™hirtShffWilci „ ^, ,_ ig.<:i A Mysterious "Mr. X' Enters ^Bugging' Probe By Jin MMnn WaiMrnlan roac acm-tt Writer
Govenuneiit prosecutors. Since that time, according have revealed that tbey are to ti»e court papers, Caddy has asldng questions about a per asserted to the grand hay that son the; identify only as "Hr. X' In a grand jury invesUgA- he represents not only B&. X tion of alleged buggLng of but also Hunt, Hunt's wife, OemocratJc Paxty headquar- and each of the five arrested ten fit the Watergate Hotel. defendants. In papers Illed In U.S. Dis He has so far refOsed to an trict Court here, the prosectt- swer more than S5 different lors List Mr. X only as a cloK questions before the grand friend ot K Howsrd Hunt Jr, }ury on grounds that he has the former Central InteUl- an attoniey-cUcnt privilege gence Agency employee and with sU of thcoe persons, ac lonner White House conmlt- cording to the couK pepen. snt who has been songbt for questioning in the esse. The papers were filed by US. Attorney Harold H. Titua According to the court pap Jr. and other federal prosecu ers, an important witness be-^ tors as part of a motion to fore the grand jury, attorney compel Caddy to answer ques M. Douglas Caddy, is refUslne tions before the grand jury. to answer questions about Ur. X an groands that he is the It was the second time the nun's attorney and that be government has moved to therefore Is protected by a so- have Csddy ordered to testify called "attorney-client privl- before the grand jury. On lege." June 30 the govemment said Caddy had refused to answer Caddy, 34, Is a mystenotts wlwther he knew Hunt and fieure in the Watergate affair. vbether he bad bnown Bunt He first appeared at the ar- before 1&7D, at the time wneu rMgnnient of the ftve defend Caddy was admitted to prac ants on the day they were ar tice law here. rested Inside Deoiocratic bead- quorten. , See INCIDENT, Ct, Oel, 2
tmrm^^-att ^iMi fj H^ ivwBirinM r wnh*i»w4 uiHtm.ri Wiedenmayer 44
Mysterious "Mr. X' Enters "Bug" Prohe
INCIDENT, Fnnn CI Mr. X, wftat fee or tt^aiaer -guarter-niile of the Watergate "This Is one of the most in arrangement be had as Hr. on those days, he invoked the credible bits of absurdity I've At that time. Sirica ordered XTa attorney, and whether he attorney-client privilege, ac Caddy to answer. According to ever witnessed. Obviously the received any telephone calls cording to the papers. the court papers, Caddy an- No one interviewed yester BaO Reform Act means noth sw^^d those two specific from Mr. X in the early morn ing." ing hours t)l June 17—at the day would disclose the Ident qnestlons about Hunt but then ity of Mr. X. Defense attorneys dtting in invoked the attorney-dlent time the five arrests were made at the Watergate. Suspect Post3 Batti the courtroom called Greene's privilege in response to more ruling unusual. than 30 other questions asked The court papers indicate Judge Delays ftelease of him. that much of the quesUonlog Eothhlatt said he hopes to of Caddy has been an effort D.C Superior Court Chief have the remaining two de- The paper* say .that "about to establish how Culdy was Judge Harold H. Greene re fendant% Bernard Barker and 50 times" during the grand retained BS an attorney in. the fused yesterday to speed up jury proceed logs. Cadet? re- case, under what drcum- the release of a defendant who Frank Sturgla, released •yiftdftA. mrt. was. Wanted per fjaiicas. VIA. h^ whfun.. had posted bond In the Demo "vrltMn a few days." Both are cratic ftaftonai t-omnitttee mission to leave the room and Caddy origlnaUy told report hniflii tuOrt. »n. URH- of- ^.poo talk with his attorneys, I bugging case despite the | ers that he had been called by "notoriety" of the case. bonds. Caddy's actions have "de the wife o( Bernard L. Barker, layed, disrupted and frus one of the Sve arrested men, The defendant. 'Virgilio B-' trated orderly investigative shortly after 3 a m, on June {Gonzalez, posted $4,000—10 I Suspect Held proceedings of the grand 17. -She said that her husband i 1 per cent of a SW.OOo bond—at jury." Titus alleges in the pa- told her to call me if he hadn't! a 5 p.m. hearing before Judge' In Methadone pcts- Greene, but the iuiage said he called her by 3 autn,, that It' .was declining to release bimi I U-S. District Court Chief might mean trouble," Caddy- due to the lateness of the hour Clinic Slaying iJudge John J. Sirica Is ex said. The arrests at the Water and because other prisoners in pected to bear arguments and gate were made shortly after court bad already been re- Metropolitan police yester to rule on Titus's motion 2:30 ajn. ' turned to Jail lor the night. day arrested Cedl Romero ItodB)-. The papers reveal tluti Ignoring defen«» requests Curry. 30. and charged him Caddy, 34, a graduEte of Caddy has admitted receiving! that a U.S. marshal make a with murder in the Monday Georgetown University and approximately a half-dozen ^edal trip to bring Gonzalez Shooting death of a Northwest New York University Law telephone calls and making a from the jail to the court dur man waiting in line at a meth School, was the first executive ha!f.dozen others between I ing the hearing, Greene said, adone maintenance center. midnight and 8:30 a.ni. on the j "This case may have all Idnds director of the conservative day of the arrests. I Curry was arrested at lUs Young Americans for Free- I of notoriety, but to me it's like i 'home, 11516th St. SE at 6 a.m., idom and was a leader In the He reportedly refused to an any other case. He's going to | 'police reported. .early 1960's of the Youth for swer questions about those I be treated like any other de-| fendant." ] 1 He was charged in the death Gold water organl2aljon. phore calls for the grand jury. | lof Norman Tate, 30, of 133fl In their papers, the prose- According to the court papers,; Gonialez"s sttoraey, Hemyj jMIssourl Ave- NW. Tate was eutors say they are wlUihold- prosecutors asked himi B. Rothblatt, saW, "A person; jshot by a man who cut In frobC ing the identity of Mr. X dur Wnfccftfer-ut-i eceeJeo'^-fcj'^c'iUf .•RhQwW.oot_b*',oenaljiied Jiy the I of htm in line at a methadone ing the grand jury proceed from Hunt, Blrs. Barker, or mechanics of incarceration.") Mr.X. . He urged Greene to order! maintenance center ot 45S C ings. St. NW. The shooUng followed The court papers also dis ;Gonialez's immediate release,] The papers include a list of and said the defendant had an argument betvfeen Tate and questions that Caddy was ask close that Csddy denied seeing Hunt at the Watergate already signed a court paper the gunman. ed and refused to answer. . stating he was aware of the. Those questions only serve to or within three blocks of the' penalties for bond jumping. Tale was employed by a pri heighten the mystery regard Watergate oa Jnne IS or June vate contractor as a Job de ing the identity ol Xob toi- 17. But when he was nskedi Rothblatt told reporters veloper for a D.C halfway named person. whether he saw Hunt within a 'after GreeQ s I'lniQ runng, roouse. For example. Caddy was! asked, "To your knowledge,! has Mr. X ever used any names other than his own name of Mr. X?" I Caddy was also asked when fc» la«f uuF and SDOke with Wiedenmayer 45 Wiedenmayer 46
Employer of 2 Tied To Bugging Raised Money for Nixon . By Carl Bernstein WuiucKwn roH sun wiiur
Robert F. Bennett, president requires full disdosiire o£ aD of the Washington public re contntntlo&s. lations firm in whose office Former Attorney General two fignres mentiimed in the John N. MitchcH, now Nixon's Democratic National Commltr campaign cbairman, has re tee bogginB ease have worked, fused Demofiatic demands acknowledged yesterday that and requests from newsmen he was the principal organiier that the contributors of the of dnmmy campaign cofnmit- $10 million be Identified. tees to raise m
TIME INDEXING LOG
0:00 - 9: 04 -World War II & Early Years at The Washington Post
9:05- 16: 15-Watergate
16:20 - 19:40 - Progression of Journalism
19:40 - 24:55 - Newspaper Sources
24:55-30:15-Scandals
30:15 - 36:40 - Power of the Press
36:40 - 41: 13 - Lies in the Newspaper
41:15-45:15-Early Life Wiedenmayer 48
WORKS CONSULTED
1. Alterman, Eric. When Presidents Lie. New York: the Penguin Group, 2004.
2. Bernstein, Carl. "Employer of 2 Tied to Bugging Raised Money for Nixon." The Washington Post 22 June 1972: A9.
3. Bachinski, E.J. and Bob Woodward. "White House Consultant Tied to Bugging Figure." The Washington Post 20 June 1972: Al.
4. Bernstein, Carl and Bob Woodward. All the President's Men. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1974.
5. Bradlee, Ben. A Good Life:Newspapering and Other Adventures. New York: Simon &
Schuster Inc., 1995.
6.Cook, Blanche . Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1: 1884-1933 . New York: Viking Adult, 1993.
7. Drehle, David. "FBI's No. 2 Was 'Deep Throat': Mark Felt Ends 30-Year Mystery of the Post's Watergate Source." The Washington Post 1 June 2005: Al. 8. The Editorial Staf^ of The Washington Post. "Mr. Woodward's Sources." The Washington Post 19 November 2005: A24.
9. Emery, Fred. Watergate: the Corruption of Americmi Politics and the fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Times Books, 1994.
10. Feinberg, Barbara. Watergate: Scandal in the White House. U.S.A.: Twentieth Century American History, 1990.
11. Feldstein, Mm^k. "Watergate Revisited." American Journalism Review 08 2004. 06 Feb
2006
12. Flynn, John. The Roosevelt Myth. New York: Fox & Wilkes, 1948.
13. Greenberg, David. Nixon's Shadows. New York: Norton & Company Inc., 2003.
14. Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998. 15. Johnson, Paul. Modem Times: The World from the Twenties to the Eighties. New York: Harper & Row Inc., 1983.
16. Mmin, Jim. "A Mysterious 'Mr. X' Enters 'Bugging' Probe." The Washington Post 12 July Wiedenmayer 49
1972: CI.
17. Matthews, Christopher. Kennedy & Nixon. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1996.
18. Muzzio, Douglas. Watergate Gmiies. New York: New York University, 1982.
19. Ritchie, Donald A. Doing Oral History: a Practical Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
20. Thomdike, Joseph. "Historical Perspective: The Unhappy History of Private Tax Collection." Tax History Project 20 Sept 2004. 06 Feb 2006
21. Witcher, Russ. After Watergate: Nixon and the Newsweeklies. Laham: University Press of America Inc., 2000.
22. Woodwmd, Bob, and Cmi Bernstein. "Stans Denies GOP Money Funded Watergate Break-In." The Washington Post 27 Aug 1972: Al
23. Woodwmd, Bob, and Cmi Bernstein. The Final Days. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1976.
24. Yoffe, Emily. "Fiddling Around: How the Media (reluctmitly) cmiie to report on Clinton's sexual behavior." Slate 28 Feb 1998. 05 Dec 2005
25. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 1997.