gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

This is every bit as scary as a president who perceives himself as 'above the law': http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081...sis_journalism

Long read but very well worth it.

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

that story was about the motivations behind the leak

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I'll give you another opportunity to use your analytical, critical thinking tools.

Motivation is synonymous with motive, no? A benevolent motive is what we were to believe Woodward and Bernstein were motivated by, right? Journalism as watchdog against public officials abusing their power. Most powerful man in the world defeated by two earnest young men and their pens.

Unfortunately, as the article shows, the journalists-as-David to Nixon's Goliath was nothing more than additional malevolent (or at least purely self-serving) motives.

Today, it's plausible to imagine how a common nobody who happens to stumble upon some sort of damning information could publish on youtube with world-shaking consequences to presidents, senators, celebrities, ex-girlfriends... Back then, two 29yr old men affecting the resignation of the POTUS via the 4th Estate was unthinkable.

Second, while it is now common knowledge that the Hoover Bureau of Domestic Spying (FBI) had file cabinets full of intensely personal information on anybody and everybody...for some reason, although that was nearly 50 years ago, it seems as though it is no longer such a shocking wart on the *** of our country's history.

I'd imagine that Hoover probably wielded his ill-gotten information for blackmailing behind closed doors. Illegal, yeah, but obviously many of his blackmail crimes will probably never come to light. However, since Felt came out only a few years before he went to hell, the gravity of his crime is staggering.

Who knows how Hoover used his information against people. I'd imagine that he mostly felt self-righteous and only used it (still criminally) against people whom he felt were a threat to America in one form or other.

In Felt's case, it was nothing but sour grapes. He was obviously spurned by President Nixon for the job of Director and made his mind up to get even by exploiting the hunger and eagerness of two young journalists from the Washington Post.

Finally, while the article does tend to maybe exonerate (at least a little bit) Woodward & Bernstein, it paints a pretty clear picture of Bradlee's lack of ethics and opportunism.

All I'm saying (and the article as I've understood it) is that the 40 year old fairy tale of how altruistic journalism, the common mans' sentinel, was able to hold America's highest ranking public servant accountable for his actions. However, as the article points out, like most fairy tales...it just wasn't true as reported. Sure, Nixon commissioned the break-in at the DNC. Nixon et alia were crooks. Unfortunately, it wasn't zealous, hard-nosed investigative reporting that was his downfall; it was nothing more than hurt feelings, another wheelbarrow full of broken laws and unethical opportunism...ironically much like Nixon's own actions.

[apologies ahead of time for lack of proofreading]