I don’t think there could have been any other way to cover the Watergate story. Bernstein and Woodward did what was called for at the time. Many of you are trying to compare the ethics involved back then to the journalism standards of today. This is hard to do, since things are so different today.
First, the White House learned its lesson. Presidents and their men will always be doing some shady, secretive things. However, I’m pretty sure that with time, and with the lessons of Watergate, they just got better at it. I think to really uncover anything nowadays, a reporter would have to go far beyond the tactics of Woodstein.
Second, Bernstein and Woodward were reporting in a time well before Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. There was no reason to automatically distrust an anonymous source, especially when someone’s career and life are at stake.
Third, I think reporters today are caught between the demand for the truth and the demand for journalism standards that ultimately end up safeguarding the truth in the name of credibility. We’re getting less and less information.
I firmly believe that a little lie to a source is fine if that lie ensures that a reporter is getting accurate information otherwise unobtainable. Well it was fine in the ’70s at least.
