35 years ago, + 1 day: the break-in

I meant to blog about this yesterday, but I was just too tired to blog after we got home from visiting my dad in the Poconos.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, five men broke into the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and were caught by police after security guard Frank Willis noticed tape over a door latch (put there by the burglars to keep it from locking). The burglary touched off a cascade of events that led to the downfall and resignation of President Nixon.

Editor & Publisher had an interesting piece late last week about the anniversary that asks the question, "Would the Watergate story have been broken today?" A sample:

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact on reporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

It's not an easy question to contemplate, because much of the cynicism and partisanship that exists today can be traced back to Watergate and Vietnam. (It's not a stretch to say that without Vietnam, there would have been no Watergate Scandal.)

The idealist in me likes to think that somehow the truth would still come out if such a political firestorm happened today, but the realist in me says "no way."

Why?

Because Watergate-caliber stuff has been happening in this country for over six years now, and because of the poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, the rise of Fox News and the pervasiveness of right-wing radio and the consolidation of our media, it's highly unlikely that such a scandal would be revealed today unless some major whistle blowers stepped forward.

In today's partisan atmosphere, can you imagine how harshly Woodstein would be crucified by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity? They'd be labeled "reporters with an agenda, out to get the president." Period.

And that's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration has gotten away with the mind-boggling things it has since January 2001 - when a legit news story comes out that's a major embarrassment to the administration, either the people reporting it get attacked, or the administration manipulates the media with another terrorism or War in Iraq story. Remember the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict?

A few examples of the people who've been smeared: Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief from presidents Reagan through George W. Bush; former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; the U.S. attorneys who were fired; a number of former army generals who served in Iraq; John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's stalled effort to aid religious charities; and Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004.

Hey, the list goes on and on. The Karl Rove template on whistle blowers and defectors is simple - impugn the integrity of the turncoats, so at least the possibility is raised that they might be speaking out because of a missed-out promotion, or a political ax to grind.

So, in the end, I don't think Watergate could be exposed like it was from 1972-1974. Our mainstream media is too corrupted, consolidated and focused on pop culture pap, and very few journalists do honest, thorough reporting anymore. The norm now sadly seems to be "report now, and we'll correct it if we need to." In other words, report now, verify later, but only if someone screams and complains loud enough that we got the story wrong.

Think I'm being too cynical? Then you haven't been paying attention to the presidential candidates' press coverage so far, specifically on the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton's wardrobe and ancient marital problems to John Edwards' "$400 haircuts," the Dems, so far, have been subjected to a great deal of superficial, biased and irrelevant reporting.

On the flip-side, candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have largely gotten a pass. Giuliani, a man who has profited greatly and shamelessly from 9-11, made about $10 million in speeches last year, and his speaking contract demanded all sorts of ridiculous luxuries; use of a Gulfstream IV Jet among them, along with a $100,000 speaking fee. And the press is bitching about a $400 haircut? Please.

Anyway, Joe Strupp, the author of the E&P piece, ended with a note of optimism:

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Those are some good examples, no doubt, but I still maintain that in the age of infotainment, there is much, much more horrific and superficial journalism in our mainstream media than even adequate reporting.