COMM 114F: Reflection #1

All The President’s Men (1976) - Reflection

All the President’s Men was a fascinating movie on an event and subject that I had never looked into. Going into the film, I knew only that Watergate was a large political scandal that resulted in multiple firings, resignations, and impeachments of various political officials, with the main result being the resignation of President Richard Nixon in light of his role in the incident.

The movie opened with the beginning of the incident: the break-in to the Watergate Complex. This was something that I didn’t even know was part of the entire scandal. I was aware of the wiretapping or an attempt to listen in, but it involved breaking in, stealing important, sensitive files, and planting bugs. 

The most interesting part of the film itself was that it was told from the two main journalists involved in the investigation: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Watching the Washington Post's perspective and its writers' efforts to uncover the story showed the many ways journalism can be halted or pushed back against by those who don’t want a story to be written or published. First, we saw multiple lower-level figures, such as the librarian who knew about Howard Hunt and his studies, back out of statements or being coerced into giving alternative ones that didn’t implicate anyone above them. This kind of covering up is not a new concept, but in the 1970s, it was difficult to reach these people and try to confirm previous statements. As we see Bernstein hang up the phone, he says he has the notes from the call proving that she refuted her own statement seconds after giving it, but with no evidence of the call or anyone speaking otherwise, he couldn’t use it as evidence. We also see this with many finance employees regarding their involvement in the destruction of evidence through shredded documents. This speaks to the abuse of power that later became the subject of trials of the top government officials charged in this event. In addition, it made Woodward and Bernstein's work much more difficult, as they had no evidence of a cover-up and lacked the power to compel witnesses to speak or to protect them from likely threats.

Another interesting part of the struggle for the two writers was internal pressure. It was really interesting to see the decisions made by the paper's managers about when to publish the piece and what information to omit. Specifically, their discussion of how no other paper was covering this at the time was an interesting dilemma that they had to work through.

Overall, this movie did a great job at demonstrating the difficulties of journalism, especially when writing about the government or those with indirect or direct power over you. It further emphasizes the need for journalists like Woodward and Bernstein to dig into situations involving the government and officials we trust and hold them accountable. I’m curious to see how the experiences of the characters in this film compare to the next film we are watching (Wag the Dog), as it covers a white house scandal from within the white house and demonstrates how higher officials can redirect or confuse the media and journalists to avoid public criticism.