Watergate Scandal, Thesis Paper Example

The Watergate Scandal was the first event that ever forced a U.S. President to resign from office, in this case, Richard Nixon. The scandal takes its name from the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C. which was the site of Democratic National Committee’s headquarters and suffered a break-in on 17^th June, 1972. The scandal became a nationwide phenomenon after the men responsible for the break-in were found to have been either directly or indirectly employed by the President Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President. The scandal resulted in a two year long investigation, ultimately resulting in first-ever resignation by a sitting U.S. President (Gill). The impact of the Watergate Scandal on the public was profound. It generated an enduring distrust of the federal government in the American public mind as well as changed the profession of journalism (The Washington Post).

The scandal continues to remain the subject of research and political analysis. Before the Watergate Scandal, the president was not used to accountability and the public rarely questioned the credibility of the president. John Samples of Cato Institute points out that before the scandal, questioning the president’s truthfulness in public was something that didn’t exist but Watergate Scandal changed that. The public trust in the media probably also grew and due to its major role in the Watergate Scandal, the media became more ambitious in its investigative activities. Joseph Califano, Washington Post’s lawyer during the scandal mentions that people and press now have become more skeptical of the statements made by public officials and do not hesitate to do their own research (Greene).

Before Watergate Scandal, the public had a clean image of the government but the scandal broke all those ideas. The scandal showed that there was a dark side to the government that had previously remained hidden from the public. The scandal didn’t only tainted the image of the presidency but also the government departments and federal agencies such as the Department of Justice and FBI. The people started wondering that if the government was breaking its own laws, how they could be expected to follow the country’s laws. The scandal proved that the corruption prevailed at the highest levels of the government (Socyberty).

No one tried to tackle the corruption in the government before the scandal because either there was not much awareness or it had been accepted as a reality of politics. But the scandal gave birth to systematic efforts to root out corruption and also possibly inspired the creation of private watchdogs. Describing the impact of the Watergate Scandal on politics, Brookings Institution scholar Thomas Mann says, “We have the independent counsel law, we have the public integrity section of the Justice Department, we have ethics committees and procedures, we have a lot invested now in detecting wrong-doing.” Journalists have also become more courageous and less forgiving of the political establishment (Jackson).

The Watergate Scandal also changed the profession of journalism in profound ways and things have never been the same. It can be argued that The Washington Post’s reporters played an active role in shaping the scandal and it might not have become such a huge issue if not for the intense coverage of the events. The scandal also forced some to question as to what the role of the media should be in politics as well as keeping the public informed. CBS News anchorman Dan Rather claimed that if it were not for the media, the Congress and the Courts might not have taken the issue seriously or investigated considerable energy into digging out the facts. Rather added that the cover-up would have worked if media had not been keeping the issue alive through constant coverage (Feldstein).

A quantitative analysis by University of Illinois professor Louis W. Liebovich revealed that the Washington Post published some 200 news articles in the first six months after the break-in and many of the stories were found on page one. Even Nixon’s White House Counsel John W. Dean admitted that the Senate Watergate hearings and the prosecutors were feeding off the media attention they were getting and wouldn’t have gone as long or as deep but for the frenzy. According to Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., the scandal has led to more aggressive coverage of the White House and the White House briefings have been entirely different in the last 30 years than in the rest of the history (Feldstein).

The Watergate Scandal also led to public demand of campaign funding reforms and limited presidential power. In addition, the War Powers Act was passed in 1973 to limit the President’s power to wage war. The presidency would never remain powerful to the same extent that it had been in pre-Watergate Scandal years. In the beginning of the 60’s, the public believed the government could play an important role in improving the society but by the mid 70’s, government started getting viewed as incompetent and corrupt. People’s faith in government would only be partially restored under Reagan’s presidency (Keko).

According to historian Ellen Fitzpatrick of the University of New Hampshire, people used to have utmost respect for the office of the presidency. People always assumed that when the president spoke, he always told the truth and there would be no reason to doubt him. The distrust for the government was not the only outcome of the scandal. According to Herbert Klein, communications director for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973, the relationship between the press corps and the White House also got bitter after the scandal (PBS Newshour). Thus, Watergate Scandal also made the government more distrustful of the press and possibly less open in the years ahead.

Even the surveys reveal the huge impact Watergate Scandal left on the politics and the mainstream media. A polling data showed that78% thought Watergate Scandal was the turning point for trust in the government. 44% thought that Nixon’s role in the scandal was outrageous and he should have been made an example through impeachment. In another survey, 55% of the respondents claimed that Watergate Scandal was a serious matter (Griffiths). The distrust of the government only got stronger with President Ford’s pardon of ex-President Nixon and gave the impression that government officials stand above the law and the ordinary citizen. The scandal also helped open the doors for the outsiders in the hope that maybe they would be honest and help change the corrupt politics. Examples of outsiders who got the opportunity include Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, and Colin Powell (Schneider).

Watergate Scandal didn’t only change journalists and public relationship with the government but it also changed the public relationship with journalists. When Clinton-Lewinsky scandal first broke out, Clinton’s approval rate was 52 percent and jumped to 62 percent after the media jumped into the story. This is because the public saw Clinton as a victim on unnecessary attacks by the media. The public has become conscious of the extreme behavior sometimes depicted by the media in the aftermath of Watergate Scandal and, thus, has become more critical of the media. Alan Brinkley, a historian at Columbia University argues that the scandal has created a model of journalism that is easily abused and debased (Kornblut).

The economics of journalism has also changed as well. Carl Bernstein, one of the two famous Post reporters who covered the Watergate Scandal laments that the public-service investigative reporting didn’t grow as should have been the case. Instead, it has been replaced by career-driven journalists who prefer glamour over getting deep into facts. Bernstein adds that journalism is now more focused on the economics of the business rather than obtaining the best version of truth (Feldstein).

It is no surprise that after Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became somewhat of a celebrity, enrollment at the Missouri University’s (MU) School of Journalism (the world’s oldest) increased significantly. Daryl Moen, a journalism professor at MU recalls that people started enrolling in greater numbers because suddenly they realized journalism, especially investigative journalism had the ability to make a difference in the world. But like many others, Mr. Moen agrees that the scandal injected cynicism in political reporting (Clawson).

Overall, Watergate Scandal has been one of the most significant events in America over the last half century that changed the country in ways no one could have predicted and continues to be the subject of passionate discussion and research. The public became more cynical of the political system, the journalism became more sensational, and the reputation and the powers of the presidency took a hit. But at the same time, the scandal also demonstrated the rule of law in the country by forcing a sitting president to resign for the first time ever in history. The public understands the changing nature of journalism and, thus, it is willing to disapprove overreaching of journalism as demonstrated by the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

References

Clawson, Brenden. Watergate gave journalism a boost. 1 June 2005. 10 December 2011 <http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2005/06/01/watergate-gave-journalism-a-boost/>.

Feldstein, Mark. Watergate Revisited. August/September 2004. 8 December 2011 <http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3735>.

Gill, Kathy. What Was The Watergate Scandal? 10 December 2011 <http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/a/what_watergate.htm>.

Greene, Richard Allen. Watergate: Watershed or water under the bridge? 8 August 2004. 10 December 2011 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3542650.stm>.

Griffiths, Josh. Losing trust in the American government: From Watergate to today. 24 March 2011. 10 December 2011 <http://www.helium.com/items/2123266-watergate>.

Jackson, Brooks. A Watergate Legacy: More Public Skepticism, Ambivalence. 13 June 1997. 8 December 2011 <http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/watergate.jackson/>.

Keko, Don. Watergate’s impact on modern America. 18 August 2011. 10 December 2011 <http://www.examiner.com/american-history-in-national/watergate-s-impact-on-modern-america>.

Kornblut, Anne E. The News Media Is Still Recovering From Watergate. 5 June 2005. 10 December 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/weekinreview/05korn.html>.

PBS Newshour. Understanding the Impact of the Deep Throat. 1 June 2005. 10 December 2011 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june05/deepthroat_6-01.html>.

Schneider, Bill. Cynicism Didn’t Start With Watergate. 17 June 1997. 10 December 2011 <http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/trust.schneider/>.

Socyberty. How Watergate Impacted America. 12 October 2008. 10 December 2011 <http://socyberty.com/history/how-watergate-impacted-america/>.

The Washington Post. Nixon Resigns. 10 December 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html>.