In the 1976 film, All the President’s Men , Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein find themselves investigating a seemingly routine story, the break in at the DNC office. However, in their pursuit of the facts, the two reporters discover a massive republican cover up, leading all the way to President Richard Nixon. Alan Pakula, director of All the President’s Men , isolates and focuses on Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation to illustrate: the importance of investigative journalism in that time period, and the corruption prevalent in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP).
While the plot revolves around The Watergate Scandal, the film focuses on Woodward and Bernstein’s journalism tactics; the methods they used …show more content…
Woodward and Bernstein’s attention to detail in regards to their investigative work stem from their need to accurately portray the facts to the public. Ben Bradlee, the executive editor of The Washington Post, stresses the need to accurately portray the facts to the public. Later in the film , Bradlee discusses a potential story, noting that “We're about to accuse Haldeman, who only happens to be the second most important man in this country, of conducting a criminal conspiracy from inside the White House. It would be nice if we were right.” Bradlee’s statement illustrates the gravity of the story they plan to publish. If the facts are correct, Haldeman’s career is over, and if the facts are inaccurate, The Washington Post loses its credibility on the subject. At this point in the film, the audience begins to realize the integral part investigative journalism played in The Watergate Scandal. In the Woodward and Bernstein Interview , Bernstein explains that “the stakes of this thing, […] were so high that the President of the United States and his spokespeople, almost every …show more content…
Towards the beginning of the film , Woodward talks with a White House librarian who initially claims to remember checking out multiple books to Howard Hunt, but then later claims that she doesn’t know Hunt. In one phone call, the librarian. The librarian’s behavior, the way in which she flips her story so quickly, leads Woodward to believe she is withholding information. Woodward and Bernstein’s interactions with other sources, particularly with members of CREEP and White House staff, further the notion that information is being withheld, suggesting corruption within the organization. In Chapter 2 of Watergate , Olson points out that “more than a year [before the break-in] Pat Buchanan had set the agenda to disrupt the Democratic primaries,” and “Donald Segretti had launched his dirty tricks.” The existence of these practices more than a year before the break-in illustrate the normalcy of such activity for Nixon and his aides. Since these events are common in Nixon’s administration, even before CREEP’s inception, it’s understandable how quickly CREEP and the White House responded to Woodward and Bernstein regarding the Watergate break-in. In fact, Nixon and CREEP already had a public relations strategy in place. As described in Chapter 3 of Watergate , “denial of White House participation and the moral stance that such activity ‘has
While the plot revolves around The Watergate Scandal, the film focuses on Woodward and Bernstein’s journalism tactics; the methods they used …show more content…
Woodward and Bernstein’s attention to detail in regards to their investigative work stem from their need to accurately portray the facts to the public. Ben Bradlee, the executive editor of The Washington Post, stresses the need to accurately portray the facts to the public. Later in the film , Bradlee discusses a potential story, noting that “We're about to accuse Haldeman, who only happens to be the second most important man in this country, of conducting a criminal conspiracy from inside the White House. It would be nice if we were right.” Bradlee’s statement illustrates the gravity of the story they plan to publish. If the facts are correct, Haldeman’s career is over, and if the facts are inaccurate, The Washington Post loses its credibility on the subject. At this point in the film, the audience begins to realize the integral part investigative journalism played in The Watergate Scandal. In the Woodward and Bernstein Interview , Bernstein explains that “the stakes of this thing, […] were so high that the President of the United States and his spokespeople, almost every …show more content…
Towards the beginning of the film , Woodward talks with a White House librarian who initially claims to remember checking out multiple books to Howard Hunt, but then later claims that she doesn’t know Hunt. In one phone call, the librarian. The librarian’s behavior, the way in which she flips her story so quickly, leads Woodward to believe she is withholding information. Woodward and Bernstein’s interactions with other sources, particularly with members of CREEP and White House staff, further the notion that information is being withheld, suggesting corruption within the organization. In Chapter 2 of Watergate , Olson points out that “more than a year [before the break-in] Pat Buchanan had set the agenda to disrupt the Democratic primaries,” and “Donald Segretti had launched his dirty tricks.” The existence of these practices more than a year before the break-in illustrate the normalcy of such activity for Nixon and his aides. Since these events are common in Nixon’s administration, even before CREEP’s inception, it’s understandable how quickly CREEP and the White House responded to Woodward and Bernstein regarding the Watergate break-in. In fact, Nixon and CREEP already had a public relations strategy in place. As described in Chapter 3 of Watergate , “denial of White House participation and the moral stance that such activity ‘has