"The ballroom, though, was mostly misty with nostalgia." - Ouch!
Worth a read: this brief article by Dan Zak at The Washington Post Woodward and Bernstein: Could the Web generation uncover a Watergate-type scandal? discussing how a ubiquitous internet has so seized the world-view of even bright people that they think journalistic ‘sleuthing’ can be done online and that no corrupt power can but kneel before the web.
“The truth of what goes on is not on the Internet. [The Internet] can supplement. It can help advance. But the truth resides with people. Human sources.”
Human sources — indeed. And, as the Watergate scandal and revelations about ‘Deep Throat’ Mark Felt proved, those human sources can have their own agenda too.
Dan Zak’s article is drenched in, if not contempt, what sounds like generation-gap-esque disdain for the “gabby, gray-haired grand pooh-bahs of journalism” but he makes a good point:
If Watergate happened today, it would probably involve a hacking, not a burglary.
He’s right about that. Or a LEAK.
Consider Manning/Assange/Wikileaks — today’s version of Daniel Elsberg and associated news publishers of the time. Same formula, different scale and methodology.
The power of the web and ease of ‘data’ copying and transmission are two-edged swords in the hands of the reporters and the reported … and whistle-blowers.
Lamenting the budget-constrained loss of investigative reporting doesn’t change the fact that ‘stories’ have always been about people, and power, and how they interact. From Plutarch to Pilger.
Our ‘connected world’ and the fact that anyone can call up your credit-rating, criminal history, satellite pictures of your home, etc hasn’t changed that.
– P
I suspect Watergate would be no big deal these days…
News nowadays is much bigger and more fanciful. For example, from the Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND06Dj02.html
If George W Bush was behind 911, this could be perceived as a bit more serious than a single failed wiretap.
Of course, the 911 conspiracy theorists are nuts, but they thrive on the internet, and even get a hearing in the mainstream media on occasions.
Rgds,
*p*
I completely agree with poormastery. Watergate would not even be a scandal these days let alone bring down an entire administration.
I have read the book “All the President’s Men” and recently watched the film. It was amusing to see these investigative journalists using a phone book to try to hunt down a source, and the boxes of paper that they had to go through in order to find an old news item.
Times have changed – and not really for the better. Due to all the crap on the net i think we have become desensitised to any kind of bad behaviour by our Government and Politicians because we are reading something new every single time we turn on our laptops.
J
What you have to remember is that Watergate is the most important piece of the mythology of the sickly liberal.
Under this narrative, Mr Nixon, instead of being a rather normal but ordinarily flawed politician, becomes the Darth Vader of humanity. It seems rather silly, but the sickly liberal won’t hear otherwise. He was the most evil man in history – because he lied. And sometimes he swore!
Never mind that Mr Nixon’s misdemeanors (lieing and covering up) didn’t amount to much in comparison to other Presidents’ double dealing antics. Mr Nixon had a list of people he didn’t like, the sickly liberal exclaims! I am sure Obama hasn’t got such a list (or has he?).
Mr Nixon was the common man (unlike most blue blooded Republican Presidents, he was from a humble background). Sheer fight and determination got him to the top. He was paranoid. Yet everyone was indeed out to get him. He was feared by Democrats, and was hated by the Republican establishment.
The sickly liberal will describe a Mr Kennedy that never existed (complete revisionism). The Oliver Stone movies are lies.
Mr & Mrs Clinton (“No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family”) are similarly exempted the same scrutiny by the sickly liberal elite that Mr Nixon would receive…
Mr Nixon has been shafted by the sickly liberal dominated media, in my view. So be it. No doubt he deserved some of it.
As for the extreme right wing media (Fox News et al), they are quite silly. Yet are they really worse than the extreme left, with their 911 conspiracy theories?
The Jews all got out of the Twin Towers (anti-Semitic, anybody?). 911 was apparently a “false flag” attack designed by the now legendary “neo-conservatives?
Indeed, 911 was, it is argued with a straight face, a latter day Pearl Harbour, but conspired in house???!!!
Does this drivel matter?
Somehow, I think the mythology people choose to believe is important. This is led by the media. And despite Peter’s protestations, I think that the media is dominated by sickly liberals…
“We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.” (Kenneth Clark )
Rgds,
*p*
‘Normal’? ‘Mythology’?
OK, that may be bait, poormastery, but, oh well, I’ll bite. And perhaps prove you right.
I think it’s false and sophistry to attempt to play down the criminality of the events surrounding the Watergate scandal, or to attempt to ‘normalise’ the sort of immoral, corrupt and illegal behaviour — including obstruction of justice, issuing unlawful orders to a string of government officials to destroy evidence etc — as somehow ‘typical’ politics.
Sure, other presidents have lied in office. No-one denies that.
By any measure, the burglary of the Opposition Democratic National Committee offices by men working for sitting GOP President Nixon and the subsequent cover-up, sackings, resignations, indictments, court actions, exposure of secret recordings — were extraordinary events which led to extraordinary consequences.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
* Resignation of Presidency – unique.
* Indictment, trial and jailing of dozens of senior political and government officials – unheard of.
These were rare but real events, not some mythical fairy tale. Conspiracy theory? — No, it really was a conspiracy.
Let’s consider the idea that such events would today be regarded as run-of-the-mill …
‘No big deal these days’, poormastery? ‘Not even be a scandal’, Jacqueline?
Come on! That’s ridiculous. If a senior NZ government minister can be forced to resign over letters of support for a friend that he wrote to his own department, how much worse if the leader of a political party in power had ordered and covertly funded, then covered up a black ops effort against an Opposition party, including burglary of their headquarters? Not even be a scandal? Yes, I suggest it would be.
If you think such criminality is ‘politics as usual’, and would be (should be?) regarded as such if it was uncovered by the press, well, sorry, you’re dreaming. Is that what you’re actually implying?
The activities of the Campaign to Re-elect the President and the unravelling which followed the bungled Watergate burglary was far beyond covering up illicit sexual affairs, influence-peddling, double-talk, pork barrel politics, rewarding campaign donors with diplomatic posts, jobs for the boys, tax dodging and links to outside groups.
Maybe expressing the sentiment that ‘Watergate would hardly raise eyebrows these days’ makes for good dinner table repartee, but I think it’s nonsense.
On the other point, about the Darth Vader-esque ‘role’ Nixon plays in liberal mythology, well, yeah, in my view (not just mine) Richard Milhous Nixon was a special case. Nixon’s corrupt and malevolent actions, methods, efforts and history (and their exposure) killed an innocence and respect for the very office of POTUS he craved so much and attained through unquestionable political nous and skills.
Nixon succeeded electorally by knobbling his GOP political rivals, he got ‘lucky’ with the assassination of his nightmare scenario/arch enemy RFK, and employed sometimes overt, sometimes dog-whistle appeals to the resentments of small c conservatives and exploited a social backlash against the civil rights and feminist reforms of the 1960s. His success almost proves the statement: ‘We get the politicians we deserve’ for, as we discussed when I read Rick Perlstein’s book Nixonland, the Nixon campaign identified and tapped the ‘Silent Majority’ — a very real constituency which elected him in 1968.
http://www.thepaepae.com/richard-nixons-dirty-dirty-tricks-2011/17422/
Nixon didn’t resign in August 1974 because of unbearable pressure from his ‘enemies’ in the ‘liberal elite media’ who uncovered his ‘ratf*cking’ activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks
The US Supreme Court had forced Nixon to surrender tape recordings that left no doubt that he had tried to obstruct justice. Some of his minions, notably WH counsel John Dean, rolled over on him. He resigned rather than be impeached. Nixon saw the writing on the wall and, it’s widely thought, struck a deal for a ‘full free and absolute pardon’ with Gerald Ford, who had taken over as VP when Spiro Agnew resigned ten months before over crimes he’d committed while governor of Maryland.
If you think that administration was ‘politics as usual’, respectfully, I disagree with you.
I read about these events again from a different angle just a few days ago when I got stuck into Kitty Kelley’s biography of Nancy Reagan at the beach this Easter weekend.
Kelley related the story of Ronnie Reagan’s attempts to snatch the GOP nomination from frontrunner Nixon at the 1968 GOP convention (Reagan was angling for a ‘favorite son’ nomination) but fell short because of the (in my view) fairly ‘normal’ and to-be-expected levels of political organization, deal-making, machinations and financial and other ‘corruption’ (or simply calling in favours?) which I guess swirls around the selection for a US presidential candidate — whether a GOP or Democratic candidate.
But such practices are a long way short of what Nixon and his henchmen got up to — and continued to do once in the White House. For many of us the term ‘abuse of office’ is irrevocably linked to Richard Nixon.
In my opinion.
– P
I call bullshit on your statements PMY.
What frightens me more than anything … is your particular mythology. it is frankly dangerous.
It is pervasive – and exemplified in the tactics of certain politicians close by many of us who actually live in this country.
I would actually describe your viewpoint as blatantly evil.
OK, I call hyperbole on your “blatantly evil” call.
Now what? and what game is this, anyway?
:-). -P
Oh. wow, talk about synchronicity … look at this discussion THIS WEEK between Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher about presidential scandals including Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky … it even ranks them: ‘Should have been a bigger scandal…” pfft!
It fits in with this discussion of this thread and another over here
http://www.thepaepae.com/danger-of-dogma/22492/ on US ‘world police’ -style intervention…
If the embed below doesn’t work, visit: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47047603#47047603
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Dick Cheney!
I would agree with these two journalists that Iran-Contra should have been a bigger scandal than say Watergate. The media liked Reagan, and this helped Mr Reagan get away with it.
I personally think that the Bay of Pigs followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis was an even bigger scandal, because the Kennedy’s were largely to blame for baiting the Russians, which could have resulted in a nuclear war.
The Lewinsky scandal doesn’t make it anywhere on the list in my view, but Mr Clinton certainly should be up in the list for his many other failings. For example, as I mentioned before, inaction in Rwanda cost approximately one million lives. Worse than a wiretap, in my view…
Rgds,
*p*
Well, we may disagree about the ‘rankings’ (and your dim view of Clinton compared to Reagan and Nixon) … I was just struck that video of such a conversation would pop up today after our discussions (Jacqueline, you and I) about the same topic: which presidential scandals were more ‘worthy’ of being a scandal.
-P