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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95