"All the President's Men"

Alan J. Pakula's 1976 movie All the President's Men is a good and bad example of how to do journalism. It is a great testament to the discipline of verification mentioned by Kovach and Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism as it highlights the importance of persistence, preparation, and asking the right questions. The movie also wrestles with journalists' "obligation to exercise their personal conscience," another element of journalism discussed by Kovach and Rosenstiel, but in this area the heroes do not always excel.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are flawlessly disciplined in the art of verification (the "essence" of journalism according to K&R). They track thousands of tips, leads, and names to break the Watergate story, following trails one would only expect Sherlock Holmes to find. Librarians and old acquaintances from social events become valuable sources of information. Woodward risks his own safety to meet with his informant, Deep Throat, who gives him specific instructions to keep their contact a secret, while Bernstein is unafraid of tarnishing his reputation by acting pushy if it means tracking down the truth. Together they sort through a year's worth of library records in search of one man's history to confirm that he did research on Senator Kennedy. Although many informants turn them away and the editor wants to kill the story, Bernstein recognizes that "this is a goddamn important story!" and perseveres.

We can also glean from this film the value of preparation. Woodward perpetually has a notepad ready and records even the minutest details in case he should need them later. When the two journalists visit informants at home, they arrive with background knowledge of names, professions, connections, and other relevant information. They never waste time on basic questions; this would be disrespectful of the people whose stories they cover and, especially in the midst of a scandal like this, would fail to get them through the door. Revealing that they have some knowledge prompts some people, such as Kenneth Dalhberg, whose $25,000 check ended up in one of the burglars' accounts, to reveal more information.

Woodward and Bernstein also show us the value of asking the right question. I often find myself going into interviews with a list of questions, thinking it may be a contrived conversation, but at least I'll have something to write about later. Woodward and Bernstein have a knack for choosing just the right question, often on the spot. Sometimes that question can even be the leverage that opens further discussion. "You're a lawyer," Woodward says to Markham in the courthouse. "If no one asked you to be here then why are you here?" Later, when a woman tells Bernstein "people sure are worried," he instantly responds, "which people?" The questions seems so logical and obvious coming from another reporter's mouth, yet I know in the same situation I would not say such a sensible thing.

But the heroes of the film are flawed journalists, too. They both persist in asking questions of informants who insist, often multiple times, that they have nothing to say. This appears to be good reporting until one considers the feelings of the people being questioned. They are uncomfortable and even afraid to reveal their knowledge. Which is more important, respecting the people you cover as you yourself would want to be respected, or serving the greater public by getting the story no matter the cost? K&R say a journalist's first responsibility is to the citizens, but does that eliminate the need for personal sensitivity? K&R also say that "practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience." It seems Woodward and Bernstein err on the side of insensitivity, as a coworker tells them "I don't have the taste for the jugular that you guys have."

Woodward and Bernstein are also guilty of listening in on phone conversations via a second line and bluffing to get informants to confirm information. They even outright lie, telling one person's wife that their questioning is for her husband's own good. She and they knew that wasn't the case and she called them on it. Both of them draw conclusions very quickly, and while they may be logical and wise conclusions, they're still hastily made. As their editor pointed out, they need facts; the newspaper can't simply print deductions made by reporters based on people's refusals to speak.

Yet overall, these two reporters go far beyond the requirements of the profession (or perhaps just set a standard for the rest of us) in the way they "serve as an independent monitor of power" - yet another essential element of journalism by K&R's standards. In the end they've got more going for them than strikes against them... and one can't forget the fact that they broke one of the biggest stories in journalism's history.

Oh, and everything else aside... the cinematography is really something, so I definitely recommend this film if you have an artistic eye!