The mysterious "Deep Throat", who contributed to the fall of former US president Richard Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal by providing journalists with direction and high-level confirmation, has finally come out of the shadows.
This has given the world a new insight into the extent to which the US intelligence community's infighting brought the scandal out into the open.
It cannot be denied that Watergate had a profound impact on reporting. After Nixon resigned, reporters around the world wanted to emulate the Washington Post reporters; all of a sudden everyone wanted to be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein.
After Watergate, passionate and idealistic young people entered journalism, journalists were better remunerated, media companies paid more attention to journalism education and expertise and invested more in investigate reporting and readers expected a higher standard of journalism to follow.
Watergate helped cement the notion that in democratic societies the news media's duty is to monitor the government. Reporters must leave no stone unturned because the government is probably being deceitful or hiding something -- and each reporter aspires to resulting investigative work as a form of public service. This has been a good thing, to the extent that it caused reporters to be more on their guard and expect politicians to not always be telling the truth.
But while the Watergate scandal bred a new generation of reporters -- idealistic about public service, cynical about politicians -- it also created a romantic cliche of the young reporter who, through hard work and skill, can bring down a president.
The media really does have the ability to monitor even the most massive government apparatus and uncover and correct its worst abuses of power. But too often this leads to "star" journalism, with reporters motivated by ego, hoping that they, too, will uncover a scandal and become famous by making the mighty fall. Utilitarianism and a longing for fame has threatened to lead journalism to all but ignore the little man and small news.
The role of the reporter changed: one now had to get close to the powerful in the hope that government officials would take a risk and leak information. Newspapers used this to determine how good a reporter was, as if the ability to bring home privileged information made a good reporter, while altogether forgetting that the constantly evolving techniques of manipulation used by politicians increasingly made reporters their tools.
The names of the two Watergate reporters almost became synonymous with investigative reporting. Bernstein eventually left the mainstream media, while Woodward has remained at the Washington Post. Woodward has been working constantly, but several of the books that he has published have been contentious.
His book Plan of Attack tells the story of the decision-making process that led to US President George W. Bush starting the Iraq War. Woodward describes former US secretary of state Colin Powell as a thoughtful statesman, but anyone familiar with the US media knows that Powell has been a main source of information for Woodward.
Woodward's other books also seem to have their own Deep Throats, in Washington and among top political leaders and intelligence agencies. Woodward, however, doesn't seem to realize that he might be being used as a tool, and such concerns are not expressed in his writing.
Leaking is an easy way for politicians to manipulate reporters, and officials have long known that if they provide a media outlet with an exclusive then they will get more attention. Reporters love exclusives even more, and rarely question the source's motives for leaking information. Although many reporters are able to see through such influence, very few realize that deliberately leaked information that leads to an exclusive often amounts to manipulation of the media outlet in question.
Such conclusions are depressing. If reporters have to rely on political leaks to finish a report or a book, it is difficult not to wonder whether the media really is courageous enough to monitor the government. And when the media publish explosive reports, have they really used a professional and unbiased approach in searching for the truth? Have they made their responsibility to the public the driving force behind the report? Or are they only trying to bring someone down because of a personal grudge?
The Watergate scandal didn't necessarily have a positive effect on the media. In the post-Watergate era, investigative reporting has become fashionable with reporters who see themselves as righteous warriors of limitless ability, always ready to attack crime. The mere thought of this brings satisfaction, yet they are unwilling to endure the long hours and solitude of waiting for a news story to break or the high level of uncertainty and possible failure when searching for leads.
Maybe Watergate helped to create an image of the perfect reporter, but it is not a true image. In the real world, reporters are required to deal untiringly with all kinds of news, and they must believe that insignificant news should also be reported, as well as dismiss the idea that news reporting is a short cut to the most powerful of leaders.
If the revelations of the Watergate scandal really did make reporters want to compose independent and objective reports, then they should stay alert and avoid becoming tools for those who leak information during power struggles.
Caroline Lin is a journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past