Watergate Now?
Strupp writes that the constant news cycle would lead to mistakes, that a cell phone camera might have gotten a snapshot of Deep Throat in the garage, and that the pressures against keeping his identity secret would have been ratcheted up dramatically. But at the end of the day, he writes, the truth would come out.
Careful reviews and triple-checking of facts are often not done in time. During their award-winning reporting, much of it done over days and weeks, the Watergate reporters had their share of goofs and mistakes, but far fewer than the scoops and revelations that made such coverage valuable, and able to stand up to the scrutiny of those who regularly sought to criticize it.Strupp is on far more than he's off-base, but I have to take serious issue with this. On the commemorative DVD re-release of "All The President's Men" a few years ago, Jonathan Alter observed "If Watergate happened today, for several reasons, it probably wouldn't be exposed … which is kind of scary." And I feel the same way, for these reasons:
Anonymity: It's doubtful that (A) a major leak like Deep Throat could maintain his/her secrecy in today's media age Or that (B) a media outlet could allow a story to be steered so closely by a nameless source, with the credibility and blowback issues at play. Which leads me to the issue of …
Blowback: Today there are entire industries devoted to media criticism and watchdogs. (Like the one, ahem, that pays my rent.) The "goofs and mistakes" that Strupp says Woodward and Bernstein fell prey to would have immediately become fodder for blogs and talk radio and pundits and MoveOns and SwiftBoats. The ideologues would motivate their base and that groundswell would create an atmosphere where continuing on the Watergate path would be truly perilous. There is a scene in "All The President's Men" where the White House press secretary takes that morning's story and points out that it is flat-out wrong. But Ben Bradlee stood by his guys and told them to press forward. In 2007, if a politician can say (and prove) that a story is wrong, well, game over. Because one wrong step and you immediately lose …
Credibility: Due in part to some highly publicized and self-inflicted wounds – Jayson Blair, "Rathergate," news magazines blowing up cars – and some internecine character assassination with media personalities attacking one another's professionalism and ideology, the media is in low regard now. Look at the bookstores of America: There are shelves devoted to books that say "The media is horrible because it's liberal" and others devoted to "the media is horrible because it's conservative." But what trickles down to most Americans is "The media is horrible." Period. So a media outlet is going to have the standing to squeeze the nation's highest officeholder? In this politicized environment? Unlikely. Particularly given the story's …
Deliberate Pace: Watergate took a long time to mature and develop into the story that forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency. Does the media have the staying power to stick with a story and hammer away at it day after day, week after week? Or could the Nixon White House delay and delay until the public had lost interest and the media had moved on to Paris Hilton? (Or, back then, I suppose, Twiggy?)
So while I do not doubt the conviction that some journalists may have in 2007 to get to the bottom of a very large scandal, the climate in MediaLand nowadays is completely hostile to another Watergate-sized story.