1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SMG on a roll: Thomas Boswell

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Actually, Woodward and Bernstein were as good as one source, really. If he isn't willing to feed them info, there is no Watergate story. They followed up on the leads he gave, and expanded their own investigation based on what he fed them, but they really were only as good as one source who happened to come forward and make the story for them. Otherwise, they'd have known something wasn't Kosher, but they'd have been chasing their tails. Kind of the way reporters have been chasing their tails on steroids stories. To an extent, Game of Shadows had that same kind of Watergate luck. A Federal probe left a paper trail of evidence that some investigative reporters were able to follow up on, and they rode their sources to get to that paper trail. But without that kind of aligning of the stars, what is a reporter going to do to catch people doing stuff? I am not suggesting that Fainaru-Wada and Williams were just lucky. They ferreted out the information when they got credible info. But the credible info has to come your way first, and this isn't akin to getting sources to talk about who is going to be the next Michigan coach. It's stuff that no one wants to talk about. It's a nearly impossible story to get unless it comes to you in the form of a disgruntled source or leaks from a Federal probe. The Feds wouldn't have even gotten at BALCO without a disgruntled track coach mailing a syringe to the doping agency, so even they need that one piece of luck to get at a credible investigation. And unlike reporters, they actually have subpoena power and much more effective ways to investigate.
     
  2. silent_h

    silent_h Member

    ^^^ I agree wholeheartedly.
     
  3. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Oh, Woodstein deserves a little more credit than that. I think the truth lies somewhere between Ragu's "good as one source, really" and awriter's "took down a president", but it's not even close to either extreme.

    That said, I agree with all of the above about any reporters trying to pull a Watergate on the steroids story. That was a once-in-a-lifetime story.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I am not taking anything away from Woodward or Bernstein. I thought that was clear in my post. They did the most important job of investigative reporting this country has ever seen. My point was that it wouldn't have happened without government officials feeding them info. Something has to come to you on stories like that. You don't get by somehow being clairvoyant. There were other factors, of course
    It took some guts on the part of Ben Bradlee, when Katharine Graham was asking, "If this is for real, why are we the only ones writing about it?" The point still remains, in a lot of ways, Woodward and Bernstein didn't take down Nixon. Some courageous people who had info that could take down Nixon put their necks on the line and fed Woodward and Bernstein info that fed their investigative reporting. Withut the sources (and one source in particular, Mark Felt), there is no Watergate. I hesitate to call it "luck," because I believe that some people are lucky for a reason -- they put themselves in situations in which luck can find them. The story still had to find them before they could run with it, though.
     
  5. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Ragu is touching on an important point. If Woodward and Bernstein hadn't done good work with the original story, they wouldn't have gotten Mark Felt's stuff, because he wouldn't have trusted them. In my personal experience, the best sources come from people who think you actually have some clue what the story's about, so if they tell you their angle, they're less likely to get burned.
    It's a virtuous cycle. The best reporting draws in the best sources leading to more good reporting, etc.
     
  6. Dave Kindred

    Dave Kindred Member

    Isn't it true that without sources nothing ever gets reported?

    And: The editor in charge of Watergate coverage, Barry Sussman, is on record, as recently as last year, saying that Felt provided one -- 1 and only 1 -- piece of critical information. "Deep Throat was nice to have around, but that's about it," Sussman wrote for Journalism.org. "His role as a key Watergate source for the Post is a myth, created by a movie and sustained by hype for almost 30 years." Sussman says the single most important source was a Miami (Dade County) state's attorney investigator, Martin Dardis, who let Bernstein see one of the burglar's bank records -- included was a check for $25,000. Discovery of that check became the follow-the-money moment that unraveled all.
     
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I would hardly call it a situation where "the story had to find them." Woodward was involved from Day 1, contributing to the very first story after the break-in. In addition, his relationship with Mark Felt went back several years. Bernstein broke open key parts of the story in Miami and Los Angeles. They did the legwork -- as you said, they created their own luck. When breaks happened, later when the courts and Congress got involved, it was largely because of the pressure they applied.

    To say that "it wouldn't have happened without government officials feeding them info" is a little pointless, because that's true of every story: You can't break a story without sources cooperating. That's the nature of reporting.

    But again, Watergate was a unique situation. It was unique to its time, its town, and to that paper -- and to those specific reporters and editors on it. Hard to compare it to any other investigation, including the steroid story.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I pretty much agree. Maybe it doesn't compare to steroids in baseball in terms of importance (in most people's estimation), but it compares in that there aren't a lot of willing sources floating around and you have people working hard to hide any evidence of the story. It's a nearly impossible get, no matter how dogged or great a reporter you are. They are the small handful of stories, in which there is such a stigma or such an impropriety involving high-profile people, that you pretty much have to battle a powerful conspiracy trying to keep it under wraps. That's why you need the starting point--the whistle-blower, the disgruntled or disillusioned insider, the law-enforcement evidence that has leaked, etc.--to give you something solid to follow. Otherwise, it's just shit you know, but shit you can't prove or go to print with. I don't want to debate the relative importance of Mark Felt to the job Woodward and Bernstein did. But think about it. Woodward met him by chance, when he was a nobody. That *is* luck. Again, not taking anything away from Woodward. He collects sources well, and is a fine reporter who has earned people's trust. There is a reason for all that. But there was at least some element of luck in the Watergate reporting, and he is on the record later in life saying that his phone kept ringing after Watergate with stories others couldn't get BECAUSE of Watergate. Woodward's life might have been completely different if he hadn't been a naval courier, prior to breaking into journalism, who happened to be dispatched to the White House with some documents and shared a waiting room one night with a guy who later on turned out to be Deep Throat.
     
  9. henryhenry

    henryhenry Member

    definitely kurkjian, not so much olney. kurkjian is a sickening whiney apologist for MLB. he might as well be on the league payroll.
     
  10. PhantomPunch

    PhantomPunch Guest

    The quality of the column over time is directly related to the quality of your legwork. Writing from a soapbox does not work - you need to talk to people. A general column is often a real curse to good writing. You ask me what I write about - I write about things I know about. When the Nationals acquired Paul LaDuca yesterday . . .

    Nice legwork, Bos. It's Lo Duca, and you could look it up if you can take 30 seconds to, umm, look it up........

    He did get it right further down the interview, though.
     
  11. silentbob

    silentbob Member

    Long, indepth interview, subject talks about working in the same newsroom as Woodward and Bernstein, how he got his start in this business, how important it is to develop expertise, how he goes about writing his columns for one of the top 4 newspapers in the country ...

    ... and Phantom points out that he misspelled Lo Duca. Maybe SMG will call you for its next interview.
     
  12. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Um, that's probably on whoever transcribed the interview.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page