Woodward, Bob og Carl Bernstein - Historie

Woodward, Bob og Carl Bernstein - Historie


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Woodward, Bob &

Carl Bernstein

Journalist


Prisvindende undersøgelsesjournalister Woodward og Bernstein kom til berømmelse i løbet af den voldsomme æra af Watergate. Som journalister for Washington Post afslørede de karakteren af ​​Watergate -episoden.

De fortsatte med at skrive den bedst sælgende Alle præsidentens mænd (1974), en beretning om episoden og den deraf følgende skandale. Woodward fortsatte til flere ledende stillinger i avisen, mens Bernstein flyttede til fjernsyn og arbejdede på ABC i forskellige egenskaber, herunder Washington -bureauchef.


Woodward & Bernstein: Filmen

Selvom filmen er et resultat af Redfords beslutsomhed om at få den lavet, da Watergate -historien udfoldede sig, har dens ægthed og udholdenhed alt at gøre med dens instruktør, Alan J. Pakula, der morfede ind i en Sigmund Freud med notesblok, før et kamera rullede. Hans detaljerede noter, der først blev offentliggjort i december 2005, blev doneret af hans kone til Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences efter hans død i 1998 i en bilulykke. De viser, hvordan Pakula kom til at se sine hovedpersoner.

I januar 1975, fem måneder efter at præsident Nixon havde trukket sig tilbage, fløj Pakula til Washington for at indlede dybdegående interviews med et dusin af de rektorer, der var involveret i at opklare Watergate-fortællingen. Han satte sig sammen med Woodward, dengang 32, Bernstein, dengang 31, deres redaktører, deres venner og de to kvinder i centrum for journalisternes liv. Woodward havde gift sig med reporter Francie Barnard, og Bernstein datede Nora Ephron, som han giftede sig med den 14. april 1976, 10 dage efter filmen debuterede i Washington.

Pakula ønskede ikke fakta alene. Han ville forstå Woodward og Bernstein dybt, så han kunne fange deres sande karakterer og motiver for filmen. Ben Bradlee, redaktør for Washington Post under Watergate, fortalte mig, at Pakula tilbragte så meget tid sammen med os alle. Han vidste alt om min mor, bror, alt. & Quot (Jason Robards, der spillede Bradlee, er på skærmen kun 10 minutter.)

Under Watergate, uanset hvor godt Bernstein rapporterede historien, blev han knyttet til Washington Post redaktører som duoens & quotbad boy & quot - altid sent, upålidelig og hurtig til at hype sine leads. I sit interview med Pakula forsøgte Ephron at rehabilitere sin kærestes ry. Hun sagde, at Bernstein blev drevet til at afdække Watergate -historien, fordi han ville bevise alle på Stolpe forkert. Han var ikke doven, insisterede hun. Han havde bare en & quotpsykose & quot om at blive kontrolleret af autoritetsfigurer.

Noterne fra Pakulas interview med Ephron afslører en nøgle til hans forståelse af Woodward og Bernstein. "Under alle argumenter og slagsmål - helt ned, hadede de hinanden," skrev Pakula. & quotKvaliteterne, som hinanden havde - de kvaliteter, de havde brug for [for at rapportere Watergate] - kunne de ikke lide. Bob suger til mennesker. Carl vidste, at han havde brug for [den kvalitet], men foragtede det i Bob. Bob havde brug for Carl, fordi Carl var nøjeregnende. Bob kan formulere og Carl kan drage konklusioner. & Quot

En historie, som Ephron delte med Pakula, vedrørte, hvordan de to journalister sparrede, da de løb for at færdiggøre bogen Alle præsidentens mænd. Woodward, sagde hun til direktøren, kunne være & stædig og bullheaded & quot og havde intet instinkt til at skrive. & Quot .

Pakulas noter, dateret den 2. maj 1975, angiver, at han havde konkluderet dette om de to journalister:

  • Bob syntes Carl var & quothype, ingen opfølgning. Alt snak. Bull ---- kunstner. Uansvarlig. & Quot
  • Carl så Bob som & kvotemaskine. Han er en reporterdukke. Giv ham en historie, enhver historie, og han løber med den. En drone. Ingen humor. Ingen overraskelser. Al stabilitet. Hvidt brød. Mr. Perfect. Ingen sjæl. & Quot

Pakula indså gradvist, at hverken Woodward eller Bernstein kunne have trukket Watergate alene. På trods af deres store forskelle havde de brug for hinanden. Hver havde styrker, der supplerede den andens.

& quot Bernstein kunne være ret intuitivt - men farlig overladt til ham selv, & quot Pakula skrev i sine noter. & quotWoodward forsigtigt skulle gå fra et trin bogstaveligt til et andet. Og alligevel var det Bernsteins dristighed, der var nødvendig. & Quot

Men i sit interview med Woodward opdagede Pakula, at journalisten kunne overraske: Andres hemmeligheder fascinerede og besatte ham. Selvom Woodward var tilbageholdende med at tale om sig selv som reporter, var han fast besluttet på at afsløre andres hemmeligheder. Dikotomien fascinerede Pakula.

Men da Pakula begyndte at forstå Woodward, spekulerede han på, om den charmerende, smukke Redford, dengang 39, kunne spille en, der var så forskellig fra ham selv. Woodward bevægede sig logisk. Hans ubegrundede frygt for at blive fyret og hans behov for at tilhøre nærede hans arbejdsnarkomaniske livsstil.

Pakula skrev, at Redford ville blive nødt til at fjerne sin charme. Det er den firkantede, lige, intense, anstændige kvalitet af Woodward, der virker. Redford kan få det kompulsive drev. Kan han få ondt og sårbarhed? & Quot

Under hele optagelserne i 1975, hvis der var et spørgsmål om, hvordan Woodward eller Bernstein kunne reagere, kaldte Redford eller Hoffman eller Pakula enten mand. "Det var den første film, jeg nogensinde lavede sådan," fortalte Hoffman mig. Vi fortsatte med at forsøge at overholde ægtheden af ​​det, der skete, ved næsten at tale med dem dagligt. & quot

Når de kunne, besøgte Woodward og Bernstein sætene. En midnat i juni 1975 så Bernstein på, da Pakula instruerede en scene. Hoffman løb ned ad en tom gade og jagtede efter Redfords grå Volvo, da den trak sig ud af Post -parkeringspladsen. Han råbte, & quotStop! . Woodward! Stop! & Quot

Bernstein mindede om i et interview fra 1975, nu i Pakulas arkiv, at en stor skare var udenfor. Jeg kom derhen, da Hoffman brød fra bygningen. Det var en af ​​de mest utrolige følelser, jeg har haft i mit liv, fordi du ved, det var lang tid siden, vi var begyndt at arbejde på historien, og jeg vidste ikke ligefrem, hvem jeg var, eller hvem han var var-eksistentielt, det var sådan set et totalt sind ----. Han havde manerer. Du er ikke vant til at se dine handlinger. Alligevel vidste jeg, at han havde ret. & Quot

Da Hoffman løb, forstod Bernstein, der allerede var en berømthed, hvor meget der var sket i de tre år, siden fem indbrudstyve brød ind i det demokratiske partis hovedkvarter på Watergate -hotellet.

"Sådan er jeg egentlig ikke længere," sagde Bernstein i interviewet. & quotDet skete for længe siden. Ville jeg køre sådan igen? & Quot


Indhold

Washington Post betragtes som en af ​​de førende daglige amerikanske aviser [13] sammen med New York Times, det Los Angeles Times, og The Wall Street Journal. Det Stolpe har markeret sig gennem sin politiske rapportering om Det Hvide Hus, kongressens og andre aspekter af den amerikanske regering.

I modsætning til New York Times og The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post udskriver ikke en udgave til distribution væk fra østkysten. I 2009 ophørte avisen med at offentliggøre sin National Weekly Edition (en kombination af historier fra ugens trykte udgaver), på grund af faldende oplag. [14] Størstedelen af ​​avispapirets læsertal er i District of Columbia og dens forstæder i Maryland og Northern Virginia. [15]

Avisen er en af ​​få amerikanske aviser med udenlandske bureauer, som er placeret i Bagdad, Beijing, Beirut, Berlin, Bruxelles, Kairo, Dakar, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jerusalem, London, Mexico City, Moskva, Nairobi, Ny Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Rom, Tokyo og Toronto. [16] I november 2009 meddelte det lukning af dets amerikanske regionale bureauer - Chicago, Los Angeles og New York - som en del af et øget fokus på "politiske historier og lokal nyhedsdækning i Washington." [17] Avisen har lokale bureauer i Maryland (Annapolis, Montgomery County, Prince George's County og Southern Maryland) og Virginia (Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun County, Richmond og Prince William County). [18]

Fra maj 2013 [opdatering] var dens gennemsnitlige hverdagsoplag 474.767, ifølge Revisionsbureauet for Cirkulationer, hvilket gør den til den syvende største avis i landet efter oplag, bagved USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, det Los Angeles Times, det Daglige nyheder, og New York Post. Selvom dets oplag (som næsten alle aviser) er faldet, har det en af ​​de højeste markedsindtrængningshastigheder for nogen storbynyheder dagligt.

I mange årtier har Stolpe havde sit hovedkontor på 1150 15th Street NW. Denne fast ejendom forblev hos Graham Holdings, da avisen blev solgt til Jeff Bezos 'Nash Holdings i 2013. Graham Holdings solgte 1150 15th Street (sammen med 1515 L Street, 1523 L Street og jord under 1100 15th Street) for US $ 159 millioner i November 2013. Washington Post fortsatte med at leje plads på 1150 L Street NW. [19] I maj 2014 blev Washington Post leasede vesttårnet på One Franklin Square, en højhus på 1301 K Street NW i Washington, DC. Avisen flyttede ind i sine nye kontorer den 14. december 2015. [20]

Det Stolpe har sit eget eksklusive postnummer, 20071.

Arc Publishing er en afdeling af Washington Post, som leverer udgivelsessystemet Arc, software til nyhedsorganisationer som f.eks Chicago Tribune og Los Angeles Times. [21]

Grundlæggelse og tidlig periode Rediger

Avisen blev grundlagt i 1877 af Stilson Hutchins (1838–1912), og i 1880 tilføjede den en søndagsudgave, der blev byens første avis til at udgive syv dage om ugen. [22]

I april 1878, cirka fire måneder efter offentliggørelsen, Washington Post købt Washington Union, en konkurrerende avis, som blev grundlagt af John Lynch i slutningen af ​​1877. The Union havde kun været i drift omkring seks måneder på overtagelsestidspunktet. Den kombinerede avis blev udgivet fra Globe Building as Washington Post og Union begyndende den 15. april 1878 med et oplag på 13.000. [23] [24] Den Post og Union navnet blev brugt omkring to uger indtil den 29. april 1878 og vendte tilbage til den oprindelige mastespids den følgende dag. [25]

I 1889 solgte Hutchins avisen til Frank Hatton, en tidligere postmester general, og Beriah Wilkins, en tidligere demokratisk kongresmedlem fra Ohio. For at promovere avisen anmodede de nye ejere lederen af ​​United States Marine Band, John Philip Sousa, om at sammensætte en march til avisens prisuddeling med essaykonkurrence. Sousa komponerede "The Washington Post". [26] Det blev standardmusikken til at ledsage totrinnet, en dansegal fra slutningen af ​​det 19. århundrede, [27] og er fortsat et af Sousas mest kendte værker.

I 1893 flyttede avisen til en bygning på 14. og E gader NW, hvor den ville forblive indtil 1950. Denne bygning kombinerede alle avisens funktioner til et hovedkvarter - nyhedsrum, reklame, typografi og tryk - der løb 24 timer i døgnet . [28]

I 1898, under den spansk -amerikanske krig, blev Stolpe trykt Clifford K. Berrymans klassiske illustration Husk Maine, som blev kampråb for amerikanske søfolk under krigen. I 1902 udgav Berryman endnu en berømt tegneserie i StolpeTegner stregen i Mississippi. Denne tegneserie viser præsident Theodore Roosevelt, der viser medfølelse med en lille bjørneunge og inspirerede butiksindehaver Morris Michtom i New York til at skabe bamsen. [29]

Wilkins erhvervede Hattons andel af avisen i 1894 ved Hattons død. Efter Wilkins død i 1903 drev hans sønner John og Robert Stolpe i to år, før han solgte den i 1905 til John Roll McLean, ejer af Cincinnati Enquirer. Under Wilson -formandskabet blev Stolpe blev krediteret med den "mest berømte avisfejl" i DC historie ifølge Grund magasinet Stolpe havde til hensigt at berette, at præsident Wilson havde "underholdt" sin kommende kone fru Galt, men skrev i stedet, at han havde "indtastet" fru Galt. [30] [31] [32]

Da John McLean døde i 1916, satte han tilliden til avisen og havde lidt tro på, at hans playboy -søn Edward "Ned" McLean kunne klare sin arv. Ned gik til retten og brød tilliden, men under hans ledelse faldt avisen mod ruin. Han blødte papiret for sin overdådige livsstil og brugte det til at fremme politiske dagsordener. [33]

I løbet af den røde sommer 1919 støttede posten de hvide mobber og kørte endda en forsidehistorie, der annoncerede det sted, hvor hvide soldater planlagde at mødes for at udføre angreb på sorte Washingtonianere. [34]

Meyer – Graham periode Rediger

I 1929 afgav finansmanden Eugene Meyer (som havde drevet War Finance Corp. siden 1. verdenskrig [35]) i hemmelighed et tilbud på $ 5 mio. Stolpe, men han blev afvist af Ned McLean. [36] [37] Den 1. juni 1933 købte Meyer papiret på en konkursauktion for $ 825.000 tre uger efter at han trådte tilbage som formand for Federal Reserve. Han havde budt anonymt og var parat til at gå op til $ 2 millioner, langt højere end de andre tilbudsgivere. [38] [39] Disse omfattede William Randolph Hearst, som længe havde håbet at lukke den skrantende Stolpe til gavn for hans egen tilstedeværelse i avisen i Washington. [40]

Det Stolpe 's helbred og omdømme blev genoprettet under Meyers ejerskab. I 1946 blev han efterfulgt som udgiver af sin svigersøn, Philip Graham. [41] Meyer fik til sidst det sidste grin over Hearst, der havde ejet den gamle Washington Times og Herald før deres fusion i 1939, der dannede Times-Herald. Dette blev igen købt af og fusioneret ind i Stolpe i 1954. [42] Det kombinerede papir blev officielt navngivet Washington Post og Times-Herald indtil 1973, selvom Times-Herald del af navneskiltet blev med tiden mindre og mindre fremtrædende. Fusionen forlod Stolpe med to tilbageværende lokale konkurrenter, den Washington Star (Aftenstjerne) og Washington Daily News som fusionerede i 1972 og dannede Washington Star-News. [43] [44]

Efter Phil Grahams død i 1963 overgik kontrollen med The Washington Post Company til hans kone Katharine Graham (1917-2001), som også var Eugene Meyers datter. Få kvinder havde kørt fremtrædende nationale aviser i USA. Katharine Graham beskrev sin egen angst og mangel på selvtillid, da hun trådte ind i en lederrolle i sin selvbiografi. Hun tjente som udgiver fra 1969 til 1979. [45]

Graham tog The Washington Post Company offentligt den 15. juni 1971 midt i Pentagon Papers -kontroversen. I alt blev 1.294.000 aktier tilbudt offentligheden til $ 26 pr. [46] [47] Ved udgangen af ​​Grahams periode som administrerende direktør i 1991 var aktien 888 dollars pr. Aktie værd, uden at tælle effekten af ​​en mellemliggende 4: 1 aktiesplit. [48]

I løbet af denne tid havde Graham også tilsyn med Postvirksomhedens diversificeringskøb af det for-profit uddannelses- og træningsfirma Kaplan, Inc. for $ 40 millioner i 1984. [49] Tyve år senere havde Kaplan overgået Stolpe avis som virksomhedens førende bidragyder til indkomst, og i 2010 tegnede Kaplan sig for mere end 60% af hele virksomhedens indtægtsstrøm. [50]

Administrerende redaktør Ben Bradlee lagde avisens ry og ressourcer bag journalister Bob Woodward og Carl Bernstein, der i en lang række artikler flippede historien bag indbruddet i Demokratiske Nationalkomités kontorer i Watergate -komplekset i Washington i 1972. Det Stolpe 's fulde dækning af historien, hvis udfald i sidste ende spillede en stor rolle i præsident Richard Nixons fratræden, vandt avisen en Pulitzer -pris i 1973. [51]

I 1972 blev afsnittet "Bogverden" introduceret med Pulitzer-prisvindende kritiker William McPherson som sin første redaktør. [52] Det bød på Pulitzer-prisvindende kritikere som Jonathan Yardley og Michael Dirda, hvoraf sidstnævnte etablerede sin karriere som kritiker ved Stolpe. I 2009, efter 37 år, med store læseropråb og protest, The Washington Post Book World som et selvstændigt indlæg blev afbrudt, det sidste nummer var søndag den 15. februar 2009 [53] sammen med en generel omorganisering af avisen, f.eks. at placere søndagsredaktionerne på bagsiden af ​​hovedsiden i stedet for "Outlook "sektion og distribution af andre lokalt orienterede" op-ed "breve og kommentarer i andre sektioner. [54] Boganmeldelser bliver dog stadig offentliggjort i Outlook -sektionen om søndagen og i Style -sektionen resten af ​​ugen samt online. [54]

I 1975 strejkede pressemandsforeningen. Det Stolpe ansat udskiftningsarbejdere til at erstatte pressemandsforeningen, og andre fagforeninger vendte tilbage til arbejdet i februar 1976. [55]

Donald E. Graham, Katharines søn, efterfulgte hende som forlægger i 1979. [45]

I 1995 blev domænenavnet washingtonpost.com købt. Samme år blev en mislykket indsats for at oprette et online nyhedsopslag kaldet Digital Ink lanceret. Året efter blev det lukket ned, og det første websted blev lanceret i juni 1996. [56]

Jeff Bezos -æra (2013 – nu) Rediger

I 2013 købte Jeff Bezos papiret for 250 millioner dollars. [57] [58] [59] Avisen ejes nu af Nash Holdings LLC, et selskab kontrolleret af Bezos. [58] Salget omfattede også andre lokale publikationer, websteder og fast ejendom. [60] [61] [62] Papirets tidligere moderselskab, som beholdt nogle andre aktiver såsom Kaplan og en gruppe tv -stationer, blev kort efter salget omdøbt til Graham Holdings Company. [11] [63]

Nash Holdings, herunder Stolpe, drives separat fra teknologiselskabet Amazon, hvoraf Bezos er administrerende direktør og største enkeltaktionær (med ca. 10,9%). [64] [65]

Bezos sagde, at han har en vision, der genskaber "det" daglige ritual "med at læse Stolpe som et bundt, ikke blot en række individuelle historier. "[66] Han er blevet beskrevet som en" hands-off ejer ", der holder telefonkonferencer med chefredaktør Martin Baron hver anden uge. [67] Bezos udnævnte Fred Ryan (grundlægger og administrerende direktør for Politik) at tjene som udgiver og administrerende direktør. Dette signalerede Bezos hensigt om at flytte Stolpe til et mere digitalt fokus med et nationalt og globalt læsertal. [68]

I 2014 blev Stolpe meddelte, at den flyttede fra 1150 15th Street til et lejet rum tre blokke væk ved One Franklin Square på K Street. [69] I de senere år har Stolpe lanceret en online personlig økonomisektion, [70] samt en blog og en podcast med et retro -tema. [71] [72] Washington Post vandt 2020 Webby Award for News & amp Politics i kategorien Social. [73] Washington Post vandt 2020 Webby People's Voice Award for News & amp Politics i kategorien Web. [73]

1933–2000 Rediger

Da finansmand Eugene Meyer købte den konkursramte Stolpe i 1933 forsikrede han offentligheden om, at han ikke ville blive set til nogen fest. [74] Men som en ledende republikaner (det var hans gamle ven Herbert Hoover, der havde gjort ham til Federal Reserve -formand i 1930), farvede hans modstand mod FDR's New Deal papirets redaktionelle holdning såvel som dets nyhedsdækning. Dette omfattede redaktionering af "nyheder" historier skrevet af Meyer under et pseudonym. [75] [76] [77] Hans kone Agnes Ernst Meyer var journalist fra den anden ende af spektret politisk. Det Stolpe løb mange af hendes stykker, herunder hyldest til hendes personlige venner John Dewey og Saul Alinsky. [78] [79] [80] [81]

Eugene Meyer blev chef for Verdensbanken i 1946, og han kaldte sin svigersøn Phil Graham for at efterfølge ham som Stolpe forlægger. Efterkrigsårene oplevede det udviklende venskab mellem Phil og Kay Graham med Kennedys, Bradlees og resten af ​​"Georgetown Set" (mange Harvard-alumner), der ville farve Posters politisk orientering. [82] Kay Grahams mest mindeværdige gæsteliste fra Georgetown soirée omfattede den britiske diplomat/kommunistspion Donald Maclean. [83] [84]

Det Stolpe krediteres for at have opfundet udtrykket "McCarthyism" i en redaktionel tegneserie fra 1950 af Herbert Block. [85] Skildrer spande med tjære, det gjorde grin med senator Joseph McCarthys "tjærende" taktik, det vil sige smudskampagner og karaktermord mod dem, der er rettet mod hans anklager. Senator McCarthy forsøgte at gøre for senatet, hvad House Un-American Activities Committee havde gjort i årevis-undersøgt sovjetisk spionage i Amerika. HUAC gjorde Richard Nixon nationalt kendt for sin rolle i Hiss/Chambers -sagen, der afslørede kommunistisk spionage i udenrigsministeriet. Udvalget havde udviklet sig fra McCormack-Dickstein-komitéen i 1930'erne. [86]

Phil Grahams venskab med JFK forblev stærkt indtil deres utidige dødsfald i 1963. [87] FBI -direktør J. Edgar Hoover fortalte angiveligt den nye præsident Lyndon B. Johnson: "Jeg har ikke meget indflydelse på Stolpe fordi jeg ærligt talt ikke læser det. Jeg ser det som Daglig arbejder." [88] [89]

Ben Bradlee blev chefredaktør i 1968, og Kay Graham blev officielt forlaget i 1969 og banede vejen for den aggressive rapportering af Pentagon -papirer og Watergate -skandaler. Det Stolpe styrket offentlig modstand mod Vietnamkrigen i 1971, da den offentliggjorde Pentagon -papirer. [90] I midten af ​​1970'erne henviste nogle konservative til Stolpe som "Pravda på Potomac "på grund af dets opfattede venstreorienterede bias i både rapportering og redaktionelle artikler. [91] Siden da er betegnelsen blevet brugt af både liberale og konservative kritikere af avisen. [92] [93]

2000 -nuværende redigering

I PBS -dokumentaren At købe krigen, sagde journalist Bill Moyers i året før Irak -krigen, at der var 27 ledere, der støttede Bush -administrationens ambitioner om at invadere landet. National sikkerhedskorrespondent Walter Pincus rapporterede, at han var blevet beordret til at stoppe sine rapporter, der var kritiske over for administrationen. [94] Ifølge forfatter og journalist Greg Mitchell: "Ved Stolpe 's egen indrømmelse, i månederne før krigen kørte den mere end 140 historier på sin forside, der promoverede krigen, mens modsatrettede oplysninger gik tabt ". [95]

Den 26. marts 2007 sagde Chris Matthews på sit fjernsynsprogram, "Nå, Washington Post er ikke den liberale avis, det var, kongresmedlem, lad mig fortælle dig det. Jeg har læst det i årevis, og det er en neocon-avis. " Robinson), og nogle af dem højreorienterede (herunder George Will, Marc Thiessen, Michael Gerson og Charles Krauthammer).

I en undersøgelse, der blev offentliggjort den 18. april 2007 af Yale-professorerne Alan Gerber, Dean Karlan og Daniel Bergan, fik borgerne abonnement på enten de konservativt tilbøjelige Washington Times eller den liberal-skæve Washington Post for at se den effekt, medierne har på afstemningsmønstre. Gerber havde vurderet ud fra sit arbejde, at Stolpe skråt lige så meget til venstre som Gange gjorde til højre. Gerber fandt dem, der fik et gratis abonnement på Stolpe var 7,9–11,4% mere tilbøjelige til at stemme på den demokratiske kandidat til guvernør end dem, der blev tildelt kontrolgruppen, afhængigt af justeringen for den dato, hvor de enkelte deltagere blev undersøgt, og undersøgelsesintervjueren dog personer, der modtog Gange var også mere tilbøjelige end kontroller til at stemme på Demokraten, med en effekt på cirka 60% så stor som den, der anslås til Stolpe. [97] [98] Undersøgelsesforfatterne sagde, at prøveudtagningsfejl muligvis havde spillet en rolle i virkningen af ​​den konservativt tilbøjelige Gange, ligesom den kendsgerning, at den demokratiske kandidat indtog mere konservativt tilbøjelige holdninger, end det er typisk for hans parti, og "måneden før undersøgelsen efter valget var en vanskelig periode for præsident Bush, en periode, hvor hans samlede godkendelsesbedømmelse faldt med cirka 4 procentpoint på landsplan. Det ser ud til, at øget eksponering for begge avisers nyhedsdækning, trods modstridende ideologiske skråninger, flyttede den offentlige mening væk fra republikanerne. " [98]

I november 2007 blev avisen kritiseret af den uafhængige journalist Robert Parry for at have rapporteret om e-mails mod Obama-kæden uden tilstrækkeligt at understrege for sine læsere, at de anonyme påstande var falske. [99] I 2009 kritiserede Parry avisen for dens angiveligt uretfærdige beretning om liberale politikere, herunder vicepræsident Al Gore og præsident Barack Obama. [100]

Reagerer på kritik af avisens dækning under optakten til præsidentvalget i 2008, tidligere Stolpe ombudsmand Deborah Howell skrev: "Meningssiderne har stærke konservative stemmer, redaktionen består af centrister og konservative, og der var ledere, der var kritiske over for Obama. Alligevel var meningen stadig vægtet over for Obama." [101] Ifølge en bog fra Oxford University Press fra Richard Davis fra 2009 om blogs indvirkning på amerikansk politik, linker liberale bloggere til Washington Post og New York Times oftere end andre store aviser linker imidlertid konservative bloggere også overvejende til liberale aviser. [102]

I midten af ​​september 2016, Matthew Ingram af Forbes sluttede sig til Glenn Greenwald af Aflytningen, og Trevor Timm af Værgen i at kritisere Washington Post for "at kræve, at [tidligere National Security Agency -entreprenør Edward] Snowden. står for retten for spionageafgifter". [103] [104] [105] [106]

I februar 2017 blev den Stolpe vedtog sloganet "Democracy Dies in Darkness" for sin masthead. [107]

Siden 2011 har Stolpe har kørt en kolonne kaldet "The Fact Checker", som Stolpe beskriver som en "sandhedsgruppe". [108] Fact Checker modtog et tilskud på $ 250.000 fra Google News Initiative/YouTube for at udvide produktionen af ​​video -faktatjek. [108]

Politiske påtegninger Rediger

Katharine Graham skrev i sin selvbiografi Personlig historie at avisen længe havde en politik om ikke at godkende politiske kandidater. Siden mindst 2000 har avisen dog lejlighedsvis godkendt republikanske politikere, såsom Marylands guvernør Robert Ehrlich. [109] I 2006 gentog det sine historiske godkendelser af hver republikansk siddende for kongressen i det nordlige Virginia. [110] Der har også været tidspunkter, hvor Stolpe har specifikt valgt ikke at godkende nogen kandidat, f.eks. ved præsidentvalget i 1988, da det nægtede at godkende daværende guvernør Michael Dukakis eller daværende vicepræsident George H. W. Bush. [111] Den 17. oktober 2008 blev Stolpe godkendte Barack Obama som præsident i USA. [112] Den 25. oktober 2012 godkendte avisen Obama's genvalg. [113] Den Stolpe har godkendt Demokraterne til præsident under mindst ni forskellige præsidentvalg. [114] Avisen har aldrig godkendt en republikaner som præsident. [114] Den 21. oktober 2014 godkendte avisen 44 demokratiske kandidater mod 3 republikanske kandidater til valget i 2014 i District of Columbia, Maryland og Virginia. [115] Den 13. oktober 2016 godkendte den Hillary Clinton til dette års præsidentvalg. [116] Den 28. september 2020 godkendte den Joe Biden til præsidentvalget i USA i 2020. [117]

Det Stolpe godkendte Maryland -guvernør Harry Hughes og DC -borgmester Marion Barry ved valget i 1978.

"Jimmy's World" -fabrikation Rediger

I september 1980 dukkede en søndagsindslag op på forsiden af Stolpe med titlen "Jimmy's World", hvor reporter Janet Cooke skrev en profil af en otte-årig heroinmisbruger. [118] Selvom nogle inden for Stolpe tvivlede på historiens rigtighed, papirets redaktører forsvarede den, og assisterende administrerende redaktør Bob Woodward forelagde historien for Pulitzer Prize Board ved Columbia University til overvejelse. Cooke blev tildelt Pulitzer -prisen for Feature Writing den 13. april 1981. Historien viste sig derefter at være en fuldstændig opspind, og Pulitzer blev returneret. [119]

Privat "salon" opfordring Rediger

I juli 2009, midt i en intens debat om reform af sundhedsvæsenet, Politikken rapporterede, at en lobbyist i sundhedsvæsenet havde modtaget et "forbløffende" tilbud om adgang til Posters "sundhedsvæsenets rapportering og redaktion." [120] Stolpe udgiver Katharine Weymouth havde planlagt en række eksklusive middagsselskaber eller "saloner" på hendes private bolig, hvortil hun havde inviteret prominente lobbyister, faggruppemedlemmer, politikere og forretningsfolk. [121] Deltagerne skulle blive opkrævet $ 25.000 for at sponsorere en enkelt salon og $ 250.000 for 11 sessioner, hvor arrangementerne blev lukket for offentligheden og for ikke-Stolpe trykke. [122] Politik 's åbenbaring fik et noget blandet svar i Washington [ citat nødvendig ], da det gav indtryk af, at parternes eneste formål var at lade insidere købe ansigtstid med Stolpe personale.

Næsten umiddelbart efter afsløringen annullerede Weymouth salongerne og sagde: "Dette burde aldrig være sket." Rådgiver i Det Hvide Hus, Gregory B. Craig, mindede embedsmænd om, at de under føderale etiske regler har brug for forhåndsgodkendelse til sådanne begivenheder. Stolpe Direktør Marcus Brauchli, der blev udnævnt på folderen som en af ​​salonens "Værter og diskussionsledere", sagde, at han var "forfærdet" over planen og tilføjede: "Det tyder på, at adgang til Washington Post journalister kunne købes. "[123]

China Daily annoncetilskud Rediger

Dateres tilbage til 2011, Washington Post begyndte at inkludere "China Watch" reklametilskud leveret af China Daily, en engelsksproget avis, der ejes af Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, på trykte og online udgaver. Selvom overskriften til online "China Watch" -afsnittet indeholdt teksten "A Paid Supplement to The Washington Post", skrev James Fallows fra Atlanterhavet antydede, at meddelelsen ikke var klar nok til, at de fleste læsere kunne se. [124] Distribueret til Stolpe og flere aviser rundt om i verden, annonceringsbilagene "China Watch" spænder fra fire til otte sider og vises mindst hver måned. Ifølge en rapport fra 2018 af Værgen, "China Watch" bruger "en didaktisk, old-school tilgang til propaganda." [125]

I 2020 var en rapport fra Freedom House, "Beijing's Global Megafon", også kritisk over for Stolpe og andre aviser til distribution af "China Watch". [126] [127] I samme år skrev 35 republikanske medlemmer af den amerikanske kongres et brev til det amerikanske justitsministerium i februar 2020, hvor de opfordrede til en undersøgelse af mulige FARA-krænkelser fra China Daily. [128] Brevet hedder en artikel, der optrådte i Stolpe, "Uddannelsesfejl knyttet til uroligheder i Hong Kong", som et eksempel på "artikler [der] tjener som dækning for Kinas grusomheder, herunder dets støtte til angrebene i Hong Kong." [129] Ifølge Værgen, det Stolpe var allerede stoppet med at køre "China Watch" i 2019. [130]

Lønpraksis Rediger

I juni 2018 over 400 medarbejdere af Washington Post underskrev et åbent brev til ejeren Jeff Bezos med krav om "rimelige lønninger fair fordele ved pensionering, familieorlov og sundhedspleje og en rimelig mængde jobsikkerhed." Det åbne brev blev ledsaget af videoudtalelser fra medarbejdere, der påstod "chokerende lønpraksis" på trods af rekordvækst i abonnementer på avisen, med lønninger, der kun stiger i gennemsnit $ 10 om ugen, mindre end halvdelen af ​​inflationen. Andragendet fulgte efter et års mislykkede forhandlinger mellem Washington Post Guild og øverste ledelse over løn- og ydelsesstigninger. [131]

Retssag af Covington Catholic High School -studerende Rediger

I 2019 indgav Covington katolske gymnasiestuderende Nick Sandmann en ærekrænkelsessag mod Stolpe, der påstod, at det bagvaskede ham i syv artikler om konfrontationen mellem Lincoln Memorial i januar 2019 mellem Covington -studerende og de oprindelige folks marts. [132] [133] I oktober 2019 afviste en forbundsdommer sagen og fastslog, at 30 af de 33 erklæringer i Stolpe at Sandmann påstod var injurier var ikke, men gav Sandmann mulighed for at indgive en ændret klage. [134] Efter at Sandmanns advokater havde ændret klagen, blev sagen genoptaget den 28. oktober 2019. [135] Dommeren stod fast ved sin tidligere afgørelse om, at 30 af Postens 33 erklæringer, der var rettet mod klagen, ikke var injurierende, men var enig i, at en yderligere gennemgang var påkrævet for tre udsagn, der "siger, at (Sandmann) 'blokerede' Nathan Phillips og 'ikke ville tillade ham at trække sig tilbage'". [136] Den 24. juli 2020, Washington Post afgjorde retssagen med Nick Sandmann. Forligets størrelse er ikke offentliggjort. [137]

Kontroversielle redigeringer og kolonner Rediger

Flere Washington Post op-eds og spalter har fremkaldt kritik, herunder en række kommentarer til race af klummeskribent Richard Cohen gennem årene, [138] [139] og en kontroversiel klumme fra 2014 om seksuelt overgreb fra campus af George Will. [140] [141] Den Stolpe ' 's decision to run an op-ed by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, a leader in Yemen's Houthi movement, was criticized by some activists on the basis that it provided a platform to an "anti-Western and antisemitic group supported by Iran." [142]

Critical Race Theory Controversy and Anti-Whiteness Edit

Washington has taken an aggressive Anti-Whiteness stance and promoted a multiple Crtical Race Theory columns and sections, including "Lily". [143]

At the same time, the Washington Post has run disinformation stories to suggest the issues with Critical Race Theory are made up by journalist Christopher Rufo. [144] Rufo proceeded to refute the Post claims on twitter, [145] showing the story was a made up "hit piece" [146]

Criticism by elected officials Edit

President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against the Washington Post on his Twitter account, [147] having "tweeted or retweeted criticism of the paper, tying it to Amazon more than 20 times since his campaign for president" by August 2018. [148] In addition to often attacking the paper itself, Trump has used Twitter to blast various Stolpe journalists and columnists. [149]

During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders repeatedly criticized the Washington Post, saying that its coverage of his campaign was slanted against him and attributing this to Jeff Bezos' purchase of the newspaper. [150] [151] Sanders' criticism was echoed by the socialist magazine Jacobin [152] and the progressive journalist watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. [153] Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron responded by saying that Sanders' criticism was "baseless and conspiratorial". [154]


Post Editor Bradlee Discusses 'Deep Throat' Revelation

"Here we were, meeting with this publisher that wanted to do a book with us," Bernstein says. "And we were talking about whether we were going to have to resign from the paper."

"You've got to remember that the stakes of this thing by now were so high that the president of the United States and his spokespeople almost every day were attacking Det Washington Post for using innuendo and hearsay information," Bernstein says. "We had been assiduous and careful, and people were starting to really believe the stories we had written. And, boom, came this, and it looked like it could all be over."

But the investigation continued — and the book got published.

'Help Me. I Need Your Help'

Woodward says that the key to their reporting was the way they approached conversations with sources.

"This was a strategy that Carl developed: Go see these people at home at night when they're relaxed, when there are no press people around," Woodward says. "When the time is limitless to a certain extent and you're there saying, 'Help me. I need your help,' which are the most potent words in journalism. And people will kind of unburden themselves, or at least tell part of the story."

Over months of reporting, they pieced those partial stories together to reveal the sequence of events — without ever interviewing, or even meeting, the president at the heart of the conspiracy. Even in the years that followed, they never met Nixon.

Both men say that if they had the chance to ask Nixon one question, it would be a single word: "Why?" Why would a president who was heading for re-election anyway go to such extremes to win?

They suggest that Nixon already offered one answer to that question. "He even raises it himself in his farewell from the White House, [which] was so mesmerizing when you watched it," Bernstein says. "When you let your anger and hate rule you, that's when you do this terrible thing to yourself."

"And literally what he said is, 'Always remember. Others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself,' " Woodward remembers.

Nixon resigned 40 years ago this summer — less than two months after the publication of All the President's Men.


How a reporting mistake nearly derailed the Watergate investigation — and how journalists recovered

The Trump White House’s escalating attacks on the news media after a string of journalism errors this month resemble assaults by Richard Nixon’s administration against The Washington Post when it made a mistake in a story about Watergate.

The president’s recent attacks began when Brian Ross of ABC News incorrectly reported on Dec. 1 that Donald Trump told national security aide Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. Four days later, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and other news outlets erred when they said that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for Trump’s financial records.

Then CNN mistakenly reported that Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, knew in advance that WikiLeaks was going to release documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee. And Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel posted an inaccurate tweet on Dec. 9 about a Trump rally in Florida. In response, Trump demanded a retraction from “FAKE NEWS WaPo,” and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused journalists of sometimes “purposely misleading the American people.” Even though Weigel readily apologized, Trump demanded that The Post fire him, which the paper declined to do.

These errors, and Trump’s eager celebration of them, recall a crucial moment when a reporting blunder almost stymied the most important political investigation in American media history — Watergate. After The Post made an embarrassing mistake in an October 1972 story about powerful White House Chief of Staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, press secretary Ronald Ziegler spent a half hour angrily denouncing the newspaper on behalf of the Nixon administration.

At the time, the Watergate scandal was drawing closer to Nixon’s inner circle, and the error became an opportunity for Nixon’s team to try to derail The Post’s investigation into widespread misconduct by his administration and reelection campaign.

And it almost worked. But the Post was able to recover by quickly figuring out what went wrong, making sure its reporters were careful to avoid similar mistakes and refusing to be intimidated by White House threats. Today’s journalists would do well to remember these lessons.

In the four months before the Haldeman story, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had made astonishing revelations about the involvement of people connected with the Nixon campaign and administration in burglary, domestic spying, evidence destruction and dirty tricks. As I explain in my book “Watergate’s Legacy and the Press: The Investigative Impulse,” they channeled the investigative spirit that had been building in journalism since the 1960s, as skepticism about government soared during the Vietnam War. And they used careful and relentless shoe-leather reporting to challenge the statements of the most powerful men in the country.

While most members of the Washington press corps focused on reporting the words of top officials, Bernstein and Woodward went to the homes of low-level campaign workers, coaxing them to share the truth about the actions of their bosses. The two reporters followed the trail of money that led to the top levels of the White House and Nixon’s campaign, slowly putting together the pieces of the scandal.

They were persistent, and they were right. As a result, they gained the trust of other sources who gave them additional information that gradually exposed the Watergate crimes to the public.

Nixon responded with an all-out assault against The Post, determined to undermine the newspaper’s credibility and weaken its finances. His aides pushed the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the tax returns of Post owner Katharine Graham and the paper’s lawyer, Edward Bennett Williams. Nixon also ordered his aides to “screw around” with the broadcasting licenses of two lucrative televisions stations owned by The Post.

And then The Post gave an administration all too happy to use dirty tricks an opening. It published the Haldeman story on Oct. 25, 1972, allowing Nixon’s staff to pounce on a small error to question publicly the paper’s credibility. Bernstein and Woodward wrote that Haldeman “was one of five high-ranking presidential associates authorized to approve payments from a secret Nixon campaign cash fund, according to federal investigators and accounts of sworn testimony before the Watergate grand jury.”

The fund had been used for sabotage and espionage against the president’s opponents, including payments to the men who burglarized the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate office complex, Bernstein and Woodward wrote. If Haldeman was guilty, then it was only a small step to connect the Watergate crimes to Nixon himself.

Although the main point of the story was true, Nixon’s aides jumped on the mistake: Bernstein and Woodward wrote that former Nixon campaign treasurer Hugh Sloan Jr. had testified before a grand jury about Haldeman’s control of the fund. Sloan had indeed told Bernstein and Woodward about Haldeman’s role, but he had not told the grand jury.

As Trump and his associates have done with articles about the Russia investigation, Ziegler and other Nixon spokesmen regularly denied the allegations contained in the stories of Bernstein, Woodward and other reporters. Former Post city editor Barry Sussman explained in his book, “The Great Cover-Up: Nixon and the Scandal of Watergate,” that the Haldeman story gave Nixon’s associates a specific error they could attack. Bernstein and Woodward had misinterpreted what Sloan, the former campaign treasurer, had said and had relied on the confused answers of an FBI agent to falsely conclude that Sloan had testified about Haldeman before the grand jury.

Nixon’s men used the error to disparage all of the newspaper’s Watergate reporting. At his news briefing that day, Ziegler accused The Post of engaging in “shoddy and shabby” journalism and called the article a “blatant effort at character assassination.” Clark MacGregor, director of Nixon’s reelection effort, charged that The Post was “operating in close philosophical and strategic cooperation” with the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.


Indhold

Bernstein was born to a secular Jewish family [3] [4] [5] in Washington, D.C., the son of Sylvia (née Walker) and Alfred Bernstein. [6] [7] Both his parents were civil rights activists and members of the Communist Party in the 1940s. [6] [7] He attended Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he worked as circulation and exchange manager [8] for the school's newspaper Silver Chips. He began his journalism career at the age of 16 when he became a copyboy for The Washington Star and moved "quickly through the ranks." [2] The Stjerne, however, unofficially required a college degree to write for the paper. Because he had dropped out of the University of Maryland (where he was a reporter for the school's independent daily, The Diamondback [9] ) and did not intend to finish, Bernstein left in 1965 to become a full-time reporter for the Elizabeth Daily Journal in New Jersey. [10] While there, he won first prize in New Jersey's press association for investigative reporting, feature writing, and news on a deadline. [2] In 1966, Bernstein left New Jersey and began reporting for Washington Post, where he covered every aspect of local news and became known as one of the paper's best writing stylists. [11]

On a Saturday in June 1972, Bernstein was assigned, along with Bob Woodward, to cover a break-in at the Watergate office complex that had occurred earlier the same morning. Five burglars had been caught red-handed in the complex, where the Democratic National Committee had its headquarters one of them turned out to be an ex-CIA agent who did security work for the Republicans. In the series of stories that followed, Bernstein and Woodward eventually connected the burglars to a massive slush fund and a corrupt attorney general. Bernstein was the first to suspect that President Nixon was involved, and he found a laundered check that linked Nixon to the burglary. [12] Bernstein and Woodward's discoveries led to further investigations of Nixon, and on August 9, 1974, amid hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, Nixon resigned in order to avoid facing impeachment.

In 1974, two years after the Watergate burglary and two months before Nixon resigned, Bernstein and Woodward released the book All the President's Men. The book drew upon the notes and research accumulated while writing articles about the scandal for the Stolpe and "remained on best-seller lists for six months." In 1975 it was turned into a movie starring Dustin Hoffman as Bernstein and Robert Redford as Woodward which later went on to be nominated in multiple Oscar (including Best Picture nomination), Golden Globe and BAFTA categories. [13] A second book, De sidste dage, was published by Bernstein and Woodward in 1976 as a follow-up chronicling Nixon's last days in office. [14]

Bernstein left the Stolpe in 1977 and expanded into other areas due to his reputation from the Watergate reporting. He joined broadcast news in a high growth period. He worked at ABC, CNN, and CBS as a political commentator, and was a spokesman in various television commercials. [15] He began investigating the secret cooperation between the CIA and American media during the Cold War. He spent a year in his research, which was published as a 25,000-word article in Rullende sten magasin. [16]

He then began working for ABC News. Between 1980 and 1984, Bernstein was the network's Washington Bureau Chief and then a senior correspondent. In 1982, for ABC's Nightline, Bernstein was the first to report [ citat nødvendig ] during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that Ariel Sharon had "deceived the cabinet about the real intention of the operation—to drive the Palestinians out of Lebanon, not (as he had claimed) to merely establish a 25-kilometer security zone north from the border." [ citat nødvendig ]

Two years after leaving ABC News, Bernstein released the book Loyalties: A Son's Memoir, in which he revealed that his parents had been members of the Communist Party of America. The assertion shocked some because even J. Edgar Hoover had tried and been unable to prove that Bernstein's parents had been party members. [12]

In 1992, also for Tid, Bernstein wrote a cover story publicizing the alliance between Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan. Later, along with Vatican expert Marco Politi, he published a papal biography entitled His Holiness. Bernstein wrote in the 1996 book that the Pope's role in supporting Solidarity in his native Poland, and his geopolitical dexterity combined with enormous spiritual influence, was a principal factor in the downfall of communism in Europe. [17]

In 1992, Bernstein wrote a cover story for Den nye republik magazine indicting modern journalism for its sensationalism and celebration of gossip over real news. The article was entitled "The Idiot Culture".

Bernstein's biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton, A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, was published by Alfred A. Knopf on June 5, 2007. Knopf had a first printing of 275,000 copies. It appeared on New York Times Best Seller list for three weeks. [18] A CBS News end-of-year survey of publishing "hits and misses" included A Woman in Charge in the "miss" category and implied that its total sales were somewhere in the range of perhaps 55,000–65,000 copies. [19]

Bernstein is a frequent guest and analyst on television news programs, and in 2011 wrote articles for Newsweek/The Daily Beast, comparing Rupert Murdoch's News of the World phone-hacking scandal to Watergate. [20]

In 2012, Carl Bernstein spoke at a rally of People's Mujahedin of Iran, an opposition Iranian organization that had previously been listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, reportedly receiving a payment for his speech. [21]

Bernstein has been married three times, first to a fellow reporter at Washington Post, Carol Honsa then to writer and director Nora Ephron from 1976 to 1980 and since 2003 to the former model Christine Kuehbeck.

During his marriage to Ephron, Bernstein met Margaret Jay, daughter of British Prime Minister James Callaghan and wife of Peter Jay, then UK ambassador to the United States. They had a much-publicized extramarital relationship in 1979. Margaret later became a government minister in her own right. [22] Bernstein and second wife Ephron already had an infant son, Jacob, and she was pregnant with their second son, Max, in 1979 when she learned of her husband's affair with Jay. Ephron delivered Max prematurely after finding out. [23] Ephron was inspired by the events to write the 1983 novel Heartburn, [22] which was made into a 1986 film starring Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep.

While single, in the 1980s, Bernstein became known for dating Bianca Jagger, Martha Stewart and Elizabeth Taylor, [12] among others.

Bernstein was portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in the film version of All the President's Men, [24] and by Bruce McCulloch in the 1999 comedy film Dick. [25]

Although they worked together to report the Watergate scandal to the world, Bernstein and Woodward had very different personalities. Raised in a traditional Republican household, Woodward was very well-educated and has been described as gentle. After graduating from Yale University, he joined the Washington Post nine months later, he was assigned the Watergate break-in story. On the other hand, Bernstein was born to a Communist Jewish family. He was rebellious, which led to him dropping out of college. He was ten months further along in his career than Woodward when the scandal broke out. [26]

They were also different in work styles. Woodward's strength was in investigation, so he focused on investigating the Watergate scandal. He met his Deep Throat source secretly to get as much information as possible. His writing was serious and matter-of-fact. However, Bernstein was the first of the pair to think that the Watergate case could be related to President Richard Nixon. Compared to Woodward, Bernstein was a strong writer, and therefore wrote articles based on Woodward's information from Deep Throat. [27] Due to their different styles, other journalists described them as a perfect team. Alicia Shepard said "Carl was the big thinker, and Woodward was the one that [made] sure it got done. [T]hey knew that each of them had strengths that the other didn't, and they relied on one another." [28]


Burglary, arrest, and limited immediate political effect

Early on June 17, 1972, police apprehended five burglars at the office of the DNC in the Watergate complex. Four of them formerly had been active in Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) activities against Fidel Castro in Cuba. (Though often referred to in the press as “Cubans,” only three of the four were of Cuban heritage.) The fifth, James W. McCord, Jr., was the security chief of the Committee to Re-elect the President (later known popularly as CREEP), which was presided over by John Mitchell, Nixon’s former attorney general. The arrest was reported in the next morning’s Washington Post in an article written by Alfred E. Lewis, Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward, the latter two a pair of relatively undistinguished young reporters relegated to unglamorous beats—Bernstein to roving coverage of Virginia politics and Woodward, still new to the Stolpe, to covering minor criminal activities. Soon after, Woodward and Bernstein and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators identified two coconspirators in the burglary: E. Howard Hunt, Jr., a former high-ranking CIA officer only recently appointed to the staff of the White House, and G. Gordon Liddy, a former FBI agent working as a counsel for CREEP. At the time of the break-in, Liddy had been overseeing a similar, though uncompleted, attempt to break into and surveil the headquarters of George S. McGovern, soon to become the Democratic nominee in the 1972 U.S. presidential election.

Presidential Press Secretary Ron Ziegler responded that the president would have no comment on a “third-rate burglary attempt.” The preponderance of early media reports, driven by a successful White House public relations campaign, claimed that there had been no involvement by the Nixon administration or the reelection committee. Meanwhile, the conspirators destroyed evidence, including their burglary equipment and a stash of $100 bills. Jeb Magruder, deputy director of CREEP, burned transcripts of wiretaps from an earlier break-in at the DNC’s offices. The president, his chief of staff, H.R. (Bob) Haldeman, and the special counsel to the president, Charles Colson, Nixon’s close political aide, spread alibis around Washington. Meanwhile, the White House arranged for the “disappearance” to another country of Hunt (who never actually left the United States), part of a plan for the burglars to take the fall for the crime as overzealous anticommunist patriots. On June 23, 1972, the president, through channels, ordered the FBI to tamp down its investigation. Later, this order, revealed in what became known as the Nixon tapes (Nixon’s secret recordings of his phone calls and conversations in the Oval Office), became the “smoking gun” proving that the president had been part of a criminal cover-up from the beginning.

Throughout the 1972 campaign season, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by an anonymous source they referred to as “Deep Throat,” who, only some 30 years later, was revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr. They kept up a steady stream of scoops demonstrating (1) the direct involvement of Nixon intimates in Watergate activities, (2) that the Watergate wiretapping and break-in had been financed through illegally laundered campaign contributions, and, in a blockbuster October 10 front-page article, (3) that “the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of President Nixon’s re-election and directed by officials of the White House,” part of “a basic strategy of the Nixon re-election effort.”

Nevertheless, the White House successfully framed Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting as the obsession of a single “liberal” newspaper pursuing a vendetta against the president of the United States. Shortly before the election, CBS News prepared a lengthy two-part television report synthesizing the scandal’s emerging ties to the White House. However, after the first segment aired on October 27, Colson threatened CBS’s president, William Paley, and the second segment was truncated. Newspapers that were sympathetic to Nixon hardly mentioned Watergate at all. In an election eve Gallup Poll, respondents overwhelmingly said that they trusted Nixon more than Democratic candidate McGovern. Nixon was reelected in a historic landslide—winning all but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia—and embarked on what looked to be a dynamic second term.


Read the Advice Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein Gave at the White House Correspondents' Dinner

P ulitzer Prize-winning journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, known for uncovering former President Richard Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate scandal, have a message for President Donald Trump &mdash the media is not fake.

The two iconic journalists offered guidance Saturday to reporters amid an increasingly bitter relationship between the Trump Administration and the press at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C. The annual event was the first in decades that a president has skipped. Trump instead held a campaign-style rally in Pennsylvania to mark the 100th day of his presidency.

But while Trump was not in attendance, Woodward still spoke directly to him: “Mr. President, the media is not fake news,” he said.

The dogged duo used their experience uncovering the Watergate scandal to implore journalists to focus on their work now more than ever. “Our job is to put the best obtainable version of the truth out there, period,” he added. “Especially now.”

Read Bernstein and Woodward’s full speeches below:

Shortly after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Bob and I were asked a long question about reporting. We answered with a short phrase we&rsquove used many times since to describe our reporting on Watergate and its purpose and methodology: we called it the best obtainable version of the truth.

The best obtainable version of the truth.

It&rsquos a simple concept, yet something very difficult to get right because of the enormous amount of effort, thinking, persistence, pushback, logical baggage and, for sure, luck that is required, not to mention some unnatural humility.

Underlying everything reporters do in pursuit of the best obtainable version of the truth, whatever our beat or assignment, is the question &ldquowhat is news?&rdquo What is it that we believe is important, relevant, hidden, perhaps, or even in plain sight and ignored by conventional journalistic wisdom or governmental wisdom?

I&rsquod say this question of &ldquowhat is news&rdquo becomes even more relevant and essential if we are covering the president of the United States. Richard Nixon tried to make the conduct of the press the issue in Watergate, instead of the conduct of the president and his men. We tried to avoid the noise and let the reporting speak.

During our coverage of Watergate and since, Bob and I have learned a lot from one another about the business of being reporters.

Let me list here a few of the primary elements of Bernstein&rsquos repertorial education from Woodward: one, almost inevitably, unreasonable government secrecy is the enemy, and usually the giveaway about what the real story might be. And when lying is combined with secrecy, there is usually a pretty good roadmap in front of us.

Yes, follow the money, but follow, also, the lies.

Two, sources are human beings whom we need to listen to and empathize with, and understand&mdashnot objectify simply as the means to get a story. We need to go back to our sources, time and again, over and over. The best obtainable version of the truth is about context and nuance, even more than it&rsquos about simple existential facts. The development and help of &ldquoDeep Throat,&rdquo Mark Felt, as a source was a deeply human enterprise.

When we were working on our second book, De sidste dage, Woodward did 17 interviews with Richard Nixon&rsquos White House lawyer. Sustained inquiry is essential. You never know what the real story is until you&rsquove done the reporting, as Woodward says, exhaustively. Gone back over and over to our sources&mdashasked ourselves and them, what&rsquos missing? What&rsquos the further explanation? What are the details? What do they think it means?

Our assumption of the big picture isn&rsquot enough. Our preconceived notions of where the story might go are almost always different than where the story comes out when we&rsquove done the reporting. I know of no important story I&rsquove worked on in more than half a century of reporting that ended up where I thought it would go when I started on it.

The people with the information we want should not be pigeonholed or prejudged by their ideology or their politics&mdashalmost all of our sources in Watergate were people who had, at one time or another, been committed to Richard Nixon and his presidency.

Incremental reporting is essential.

We wrote more than 300 stories in Watergate. Whenever I&rsquod say &ldquolet&rsquos go for the big picture, the whole enchilada&rdquo or whatever, Bob would say, &ldquohere&rsquos what we know now, and are ready to put in the paper.&rdquo

And then, inevitably, one story led to another and another, and the larger talk expanded because of this reportorial dynamic. The best obtainable version of the truth became repeatedly clearer, more developed and understandable.

We&rsquore reporters&mdashnot judges, not legislators. What government or citizens or judges do with the information we&rsquove developed is not part of our process, or our objective. Our job is to put the best obtainable version of the truth out there, period.

Especially now.

BOB WOODWARD:

I am honored to be standing here with Carl, who has over the decades taught me so much about journalism. As he said, reporting is about human connections&mdashfinding the people who know what is hidden and establishing relationships of trust.

That was the first lesson, from Carl, in 1972. He obtained a list of people who had worked at Nixon&rsquos reelection campaign committee. Not surprisingly, from a former girlfriend.

He&rsquos finally embarrassed.

No one would talk. Carl said, &ldquohere&rsquos what we have to do&rdquo&mdashlaunching the system of going to the homes of people, knocking on doors when we had no appointment. We later wrote, &ldquothe nighttime visits were, frankly, fishing expeditions.&rdquo The trick was getting inside someone&rsquos apartment or house. Bits and pieces came we saw fear, at times. We heard about document destruction, a massive house-cleaning at the Nixon reelection committee, a money trail, an organized, well-funded coverup.

Clark MacGregor, then the Nixon campaign manager, called Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, to complain., MacGregor reported, &ldquothey knock on doors late at night and telephone from the lobby. They hounded five women!&rdquo

Bradlee&rsquos response: &ldquoThat&rsquos the nicest thing I&rsquove heard about them in years!&rdquo

And he meant, maybe ever.

In 1973, I recall standing on Pennsylvania Avenue with Carl after a court hearing. We watched three of the Watergate burglars and their lawyer filling a cab, front and back seats. Carl was desperate&mdashdesperate that he would lose them and this opportunity., He was short on cash and didn&rsquot know where he might be going. I gave Carl twenty dollars.

There was no room in the cab, but Carl, uninvited, got in anyway, piling in on top of these people as the door slammed. He ended up flying with the lawyer to New York City and came back with another piece of the puzzle.

I never got my $20.

The point: very aggressive reporting is often necessary. Bradlee and the editors of the Washington Post gave us the precious luxury of time to pursue all leads, all people who might know something&mdasheven something small.,

Now, in 2017, the impatience and speed of the internet and our own rush can disable and undermine the most important tool of journalism: that method that luxury of time to inquire, to pursue, to find the real agents of genuine news, witnesses, participants, documents, into the cab.

Any president and his administration in Washington is clearly entitled to the most serious reporting efforts possible. We need to understand, to listen, to dig. Obviously, our reporting needs to get both facts and tone right. The press, especially the so-called mainstream media, comes under regular attack, particularly during presidential campaigns like this one, and its aftermath.

Like politicians and presidents, sometimes, perhaps too frequently, we make mistakes and go too far. When that happens, we should own up to it. But the effort today to get this best obtainable version of the truth is largely made in good faith.

Mr. President, the media is not fake news.

Let&rsquos take that off the table as we proceed.

As Marty Baron, the executive editor of the Stolpe, said in recent speeches, reporters should display modesty and humility, bending over backwards and sincerely, not only to be fair but to demonstrate to people we cover that we intend and will be fair.

In other words, that we have an obligation to listen.

At the same time, Marty said, &ldquowhen we have done our job thoroughly, we have a duty to tell people what we&rsquove learned, and to tell it to them forthrightly, without masking our findings or muddling them.&rdquo

Journalists should not have a dog in the political fight except to find that best obtainable version of the truth. The indispensable centrality of fact-based reporting is careful, scrupulous listening and an open mind.

President Nixon once said the problem with journalists is that they look in the mirror when they should be looking out the window. That is certainly one thing that Nixon said that Carl and I agree with.

Whatever the climate, whether the media&rsquos revered or reviled, we should and must persist, and, I believe, we will.

We also need to face the reality that polling numbers should that most Americans disapprove of and distrust the media. This is no time for self-satisfaction or smugness. But as Ben Bradlee said in 1997, twenty years ago, &ldquothe most aggressive our search for truth, the more some people are offended by the press. So be it.&rdquo

Ben continued: &ldquoI take great strange knowing that in my experience, the truth does emerge. It takes forever sometimes, but it does emerge, and that any relaxation by the press will be extremely costly to democracy.&rdquo

Carl and I are grandfathers, perhaps great-grandfathers in American journalism, but we can see that the three journalists that we are recognizing tonight are some of the finest examples of that craft of persistence.


All the President's Men

In what must be the most devastating political detective story of the century, two young Washington Post reporters whose brilliant investigative journalism smashed the Watergate scandal wide open tell the whole behind-the-scenes drama the way it really happened.

The story begins with a burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters on June 17, 1972. Bob Woodward, who was then working on the Washington Post's District of Columbia staff, was called into the office on a Saturday morning to cover the story. Carl Bernstein, a Virginia political reporter on the Stolpe, was also assigned. The two men soon learned that this was not a simple burglary.

Following lead after lead, Woodward and Bernstein picked up a trail of money, secrecy and high-level pressure that led to the Oval Office and implicated the men closest to Richard Nixon and then the President himself. Over the months, Woodward met secretly with Deep Throat, now perhaps America's most famous still-anonymous source.

Here is the amazing story. From the first suspicions through the tortuous days of reporting and finally getting people to talk, the journalists were able to put the pieces of the puzzle together and produce the stories that won the Stolpe a Pulitzer Prize. All the President's Men is the inside story of how Bernstein and Woodward broke the story that brought about the President's downfall. This is the reporting that changed the American presidency.


After 30 years, the scoop on Woodward and Bernstein

THIS year marks the 30th anniversary of the movie “All the President’s Men,” starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, respectively. The movie made Woodward and Bernstein forever famous and has become a classic. It still runs on television, is played widely in journalism schools and often is used as shorthand in high schools to teach about one of the most corrupt times in U.S. politics.

Although the movie is the result of Redford’s determination to get it made as the Watergate story unfolded, its authenticity and endurance have everything to do with its director, Alan J. Pakula, who morphed into a Sigmund Freud with notepad before any camera rolled. His detailed notes, first made public in December 2005, were donated by his wife to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences after his death in 1998 in an automobile accident. They show how Pakula came to view his protagonists.

In January 1975, five months after President Nixon had resigned, Pakula flew to Washington to begin in-depth interviews with a dozen of the principals involved in unraveling the Watergate tale. He sat down with Woodward, then 32, Bernstein, then 31, their editors, their friends and the two women at the center of the reporters’ lives. Woodward had married reporter Francie Barnard, and Bernstein was dating Nora Ephron, whom he married on April 14, 1976 -- 10 days after the movie debuted in Washington.

Pakula didn’t want facts alone. He wanted to understand Woodward and Bernstein deeply so he could capture their true characters and motivations for the movie. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post during Watergate, told me that Pakula spent “so much time with each of us. He knew all about my mother, brother -- everything.” (Jason Robards, who played Bradlee, is on screen only 10 minutes.)

During Watergate, no matter how well Bernstein reported the story, he was pegged by Post editors as the “bad boy” of the duo -- always late, unreliable and quick to hype his leads. In her interview with Pakula, Ephron tried to rehabilitate her boyfriend’s reputation. She said Bernstein was driven to uncover the Watergate story because he wanted to prove everyone at the Post wrong. He was not lazy, she insisted. He just had a “psychosis” about being controlled by authority figures.

The notes from Pakula’s interview with Ephron reveal a key to his understanding of Woodward and Bernstein. “Underneath all the arguments and fights -- way down, they hated each other,” Pakula wrote. “The qualities that each other had -- the qualities that they needed [to report Watergate] -- they didn’t like. Bob’s sucking up to people. Carl knew he needed [that quality] but despised it in Bob. Bob needed Carl because Carl was pushy. Bob can formulate and Carl can draw conclusions.”

One story that Ephron shared with Pakula concerned how the two reporters sparred as they raced to complete the book “All the President’s Men.” Woodward, she told the director, could be “so stubborn and bullheaded” and had “no instinct for writing.” When Ephron and Bernstein were in Martinique on vacation, Woodward and Bernstein fought on the telephone, to the tune of a $400 bill, about verb tenses.

Pakula’s notes, dated May 2, 1975, indicate that he’d concluded this about the two reporters:

* Bob thought Carl was “hype, no follow-through. All talk. Bull---- artist. Irresponsible.”

* Carl saw Bob as “a machine. He’s a reporter doll. Give him a story, any story, and he runs with it. A drone. No humor. No surprises. All stability. Hvidt brød. Mr. Perfect. No soul.”

Pakula gradually realized that neither Woodward nor Bernstein could have pulled off Watergate alone. Despite their stark differences, they needed each another. Each had strengths that complemented the other’s.

“Bernstein could be right intuitively -- but dangerous left to himself,” Pakula wrote in his notes. “Woodward cautiously would have to go from one step literally to another. And yet it was Bernstein’s daring that was necessary.”

But in his interview with Woodward, Pakula discovered that the reporter could surprise: Other people’s secrets fascinated and obsessed him. Although Woodward was reluctant to talk about himself as a reporter, he was determined to expose other people’s secrets. The dichotomy intrigued Pakula.

But as Pakula began to understand Woodward, he wondered if the charming, handsome Redford, then 39, could play someone so different from himself. Woodward moved logically. His unfounded fear of being fired and his need to belong fueled his workaholic lifestyle.

Pakula wrote that Redford would have to “scrap his charm. It’s that square, straight, intense, decent quality of Woodward’s that works. Redford can get that compulsive drive. Can he get the hurt and vulnerability?”

Throughout filming in 1975, if there was a question on how Woodward or Bernstein might react, Redford or Hoffman or Pakula called either man. “It was the first film I ever made like this,” Hoffman told me. "Vi blev ved med at forsøge at overholde ægtheden af ​​det, der skete, ved næsten at tale med dem dagligt."

Når de kunne, besøgte Woodward og Bernstein sætene. En midnat i juni 1975 så Bernstein på, da Pakula instruerede en scene. Hoffman løb ned ad en tom gade og jagtede efter Redfords grå Volvo, da den trak sig ud af Post -parkeringspladsen. Han råbte: ”Stop! . Woodward! Hold op!"

Bernstein mindede i et interview fra 1975, nu i Pakulas arkiv, om at "store skarer var udenfor. Jeg kom derhen, da Hoffman brød fra bygningen. Det var en af ​​de mest utrolige følelser, jeg har haft i mit liv, fordi du ved, det var lang tid siden, vi var begyndt at arbejde på historien, og jeg vidste ikke ligefrem, hvem jeg var, eller hvem han var var-eksistentielt, det var sådan set et totalt sind ----. Han havde manerer. Du er ikke vant til at se dine handlinger. Alligevel vidste jeg, at han havde ret. ”

Da Hoffman løb, forstod Bernstein, der allerede var en berømthed, hvor meget der var sket i de tre år, siden fem indbrudstyve brød ind i det demokratiske partis hovedkvarter på Watergate -hotellet.

"Sådan er jeg egentlig ikke længere," sagde Bernstein i interviewet. »Det skete for længe siden. Ville jeg løbe sådan igen? ”


Se videoen: The Kalb Report - Writing History: Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Journalisms Finest Hour