Midterm Blog Post

Investigative Journalism is ultimately about accountability and truth being made known. When an investigative journalist does their job well, they help their fellow citizens make informed decisions and they help in keeping the “powers at be” such as government entities and major corporations accountable.

The process of investigative journalism is similar in some ways to that of the scientific process of determining if something is true. A journalist has to choose a topic or subject. This is typically a major news event, or something that affects their audience in some way. Then, they form a hypothesis.

After that, the journalist has to get busy gathering all sorts of information that pertain to the topic at hand. Primary and secondary sources, documentation, just about anything that might shed light and guide the journalist in their quest for the truth.

Most journalists have no problem with doing interviews, but in order to produce compelling stories, the journalist has to have a “documents state of mind.” This phasing means the journalist has the mindset that a document(s) exists somewhere that will steer the investigation forward.

The idea of having to sift through documentation and databases can seem daunting and overwhelming. Journalists have to however push past the idea of feeling lost when it comes to learning how to obtain and utilize documents and databases.

The work of an investigative journalist can be tasking. After researching and gathering information they have to piece the story together, which would be fine except that there are usually many road blocks along the way. The journalist might find themselves at a dead end after a long paper trail. They might also have difficulty with securing interviews.

The journalist has not secured anything until they see the interview through and confirm that the information they have is valid. I saw this happen in the film quite often. One of the reporters will find a source and then when the time arrives for the interview the source changes their mind.

In the film, Bernstein and Woodward went forward with printing inaccurate information that a source had given them. Though they had been printing correct information up until that one mistake, the blunder was what made the news and consequently what readers remember. These kind of mistakes can ruin a journalist’s credibility.

The significance of vetting information is especially true when the journalist is going to be accusing people, particularly, a public official of a crime. Wrongfully accusing someone will almost certainly bury one’s career in the field.

One thing that I learned as I watched the film and through the chapter readings is that the investigative journalist has to have incredible tenacity. Time and time again, the duo would spend many nights doing tedious tasks such as pouring over documents, register of names, and financial databases. All in pursuit of finding the truth.

The Paul Williams Way was applied in the film through Bernstein firstly, watching the news and discovering a lead from belongings of the felons. After attending a court hearing and speaking to people there, he developed a hypothesis. He then set about chasing the first lead.

The pair also chased every tip or lead they recieved until it led to an even better lead or eventually hit a deadend. The theme of persistence is what carried them through the often tedious tasks of following paper trails and literally going door to door.

They built their base by pouring through various documentations. Anything from the list of people who work for the White House, to financial statements of the Commitee to Reelect the President.

By finding out who works for or closely with the White House, they were able to get both primary and secondary sources. This helped in building their case against Nixon and his men. Another step in the Willams way they did well was utilizing their sources skillfully. They did this especially well when the time came for them to fill in the gaps of their story.

Some priamry sources that I saw used in the film was first hand accounts of people who worked for Nixon’s administration. An example of this was the bookkeeper for Nixon’s head of finance. Her testimony of witnessing an exhuberent amount of money that was accounted for flow through CREEP cracked the case wide open in several ways.

Some secondary sources were articles that they found, and even researching the books that the antagonist had checked out during the period of time before the break in happened. In a way, the librarian blantanly denying even knowing Howard Hunt was a lead in and of itself.

The whistleblowers were very pivotal for the investigation because it affirmed what Bernstein and Woodward were convinced of from the beginning. A major whistleblower was the bookkeeper. Her addmitance about the money opened up a major lead for the journalists. The paper trails were mostly checks that were made out to people, and even documentation about hotel stays that tied people to the scene of the crime.

While investigating the executive branch, the duo utililzed friends that worked for the federal for the governemnt for leads. They also did research by finding and interviewing people who worked for the public officials that they were investigating. This technique led them to direct contacts.

I did not really find any blatant examples of an ethical dillemma in the way the Washington Post reporters conducted their investigation. There were times, early on when Bernstein would resort to flirtation to get information out of his female sources. He was also initially a little aggressive in his quest for anwsers.

One intance of Bernstein’s somewhat aggressive nature was when he asked his coworker to manipulate her ex-fiance into giving her infirmation that would help with moving the story along. The woman at point started crying and still, he was unrelenting in trying to convince her to do it.

Outside of the political history behind the incident, the tenacity and perserverance of the Washington Post reporters in the face of many obstacles and setbacks eventually led to the disentragtion of an adminstation that was commiting a federal crime.

This case was a landmark for investigative reporting becuase Woodward and Bernstein’s display of both skill and persistance was unmatched at the time. During the period whern they were attempting to pull the story together, every other newspaper had given up.

One crucial thing I learned about the relationship between an editor and their reporters was trust and respect. In the film, viewers saw first hand the relationship dynamic between Harry Rosenheld (editor) and the duo.

He had to trust that the information they were gathering and publishing was factual. There is a scene in the film where he says “I cant do the reporting for my reporters, so I’ll have to trust them.”

As viewers, we get a front row seat to witness the growth of trust and respect between Woodstein and the editor. As he saw that they were working tirelessly on the investigation, he paid much more attention to what they had to say and even allowed them to printtheir story on the first page of the paper.

I also saw how the editor also pushed them to dig deeper both within themselves and with the investiagtion. This stretching allowed them to sharpen their skills s investigative journalists.

I leaned that as a reporter, you absoultely need to be a team player, bold, tenacious, gentle and discerning. It is important to be a team player because the reporter will have more people helping them and movingt the story along.

It is imperative for the reporter to be bold because it is very likely that they will encounter strong and defensive personalities. Being able to ask the hard. questions can be the difference between a strong piece and one that is okay.

Three characters that played an important role in the story were the bookkeeper for Nixon’s head of finance, the editors and the head of finance of CREEP. The bookkeeper pivotal for the investigation because she revealed a lot of information about the questionable practices within the fiance department.

The editors pushed Woodward and Bernstein to their limits which helped grow exponentially throughout the investigation. The final character that was pivotal for the story was Sloane. This was Nixon’s former head of finance, who ended up quitting because he was uncomfortable with some of the things happening within his department.

I would ask Woodward and Bernstein where they gathered the strength and perserveanrce to keep moving forward with the investigation inspite of all the obstacles they encountered seemingly at every turn.

I would also ask the duo what were some of the greatest lessons they learned about themselves, the investigative journalism process and importance of perseverance.