Hey Old Farts!

[The Big Cat]

Seriously.

 

I'm curious about how "famous" Woodward and Bernstein were prior to their depictions by Redford and Hoffman.

 

As their pieces were being published by the Washington Post, did anyone outside the beltway care about WandB? Were they doing nightly interviews for the national news? Did their names EVER come up on the national news?

 

Even AFTER the scandal came to fruition and the President resigned, did anyone know their names until the movie came out?

[Kelly the Dog]

Seriously.

 

I'm curious about how "famous" Woodward and Bernstein were prior to their depictions by Redford and Hoffman.

 

As their pieces were being published by the Washington Post, did anyone outside the beltway care about WandB? Were they doing nightly interviews for the national news? Did their names EVER come up on the national news?

 

Even AFTER the scandal came to fruition and the President resigned, did anyone know their names until the movie came out?

 

Ummmm... although there were several different smaller causes, Woodward and Bernstein becoming and posing as celebrities is the main reason we have this problem today with the media and the punditry. The book was huge first but the movie didnt hurt.

[The Big Cat]

Ummmm... although there were several different smaller causes, Woodward and Bernstein becoming and posing as celebrities is the main reason we have this problem today with the media and the punditry. The book was huge first but the movie didnt hurt.

 

That's exactly the point of the piece I'm writing.

 

Interestingly, it was Redford that pushed them to put together the book because he subsequently purchased the movie rights.

 

My question is: were the famous prior to the the book/movie?

 

Or did the movie make them famous?

[IDBillzFan]

Ummmm... although there were several different smaller causes, Woodward and Bernstein becoming and posing as celebrities is the main reason we have this problem today with the media and the punditry. The book was huge first but the movie didnt hurt.

It's been a while, but I recall watching a discussion years ago that prior to Watergate, there was a lot of trust between the White House and the media, but that Watergate completely changed that landscape forever. I don't recall the premise, but essentially the argument was that many in the media felt betrayed by Nixon and his administration, and thus was born a media which ultimately decided it is more important to report first and check facts later.

[The Big Cat]

It's been a while, but I recall watching a discussion years ago that prior to Watergate, there was a lot of trust between the White House and the media, but that Watergate completely changed that landscape forever. I don't recall the premise, but essentially the argument was that many in the media felt betrayed by Nixon and his administration, and thus was born a media which ultimately decided it is more important to report first and check facts later.

 

Are you suggesting W and B didn't fact check?

[Wacka]

Are you suggesting W and B didn't fact check?

 

Martha Mitchell, John's wife, came in TV when it all started and said her husband was crooked. He dismissed her as nuts. She died from cancer before it was all over and never got to say "see I told you so".

 

No they fact checked, in fact they had to get two sources for everything.

The problem is that "journalists" wanted to be the next W &B after that and ran with everything.

 

They weren't famous before the stories came out. In 73-74 I was taking American history in 11th grade and the teacher had us watch the recaps of the daily events on the evening news. She was going over the constitution at the time and was using the current events as a perfect example of it in action.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's been a while, but I recall watching a discussion years ago that prior to Watergate, there was a lot of trust between the White House and the media, but that Watergate completely changed that landscape forever. I don't recall the premise, but essentially the argument was that many in the media felt betrayed by Nixon and his administration, and thus was born a media which ultimately decided it is more important to report first and check facts later.

 

Yeah, that's true for sure. But that was true of athletes, too, during the first three quarters of the century, and most other famous people. Celebrities and stars were handled with kid gloves for the most part, and their off the field activities were covered up.

 

This is just my opinion, but I would argue that the celebrity element of the Watergate story was probably more important than the mistrust. The entire country felt the mistrust in government and the White House because of it. But to me, so many reporters wanted to be famous like Woodward and Bernstein, and uncover the next Watergate, that they put themselves as the story instead of the characters in the story. They wanted to be the celebrities, not their subjects. I think that was a larger factor in the downfall of journalism than the mistrust, although that was enormous, too.

[IDBillzFan]

Are you suggesting W and B didn't fact check?

No, not at all. Just that today's media is so eager to get the news out first that they'll take indecent liberties with words like "alleged," "apparently" and "according to unnamed source," things that respected publications simply didn't do in the 70s.

 

Yeah, that's true for sure. But that was true of athletes, too, during the first three quarters of the century, and most other famous people. Celebrities and stars were handled with kid gloves for the most part, and their off the field activities were covered up.

 

This is just my opinion, but I would argue that the celebrity element of the Watergate story was probably more important than the mistrust. The entire country felt the mistrust in government and the White House because of it. But to me, so many reporters wanted to be famous like Woodward and Bernstein, and uncover the next Watergate, that they put themselves as the story instead of the characters in the story. They wanted to be the celebrities, not their subjects. I think that was a larger factor in the downfall of journalism than the mistrust, although that was enormous, too.

And now they don't even try to be famous by uncovering an important story, but rather for just saying something stupid or controversial in hopes of it getting distributed on Youtube. You can really stretch that 15 minutes owed to you if you work it properly.

[Kelly the Dog]

No, not at all. Just that today's media is so eager to get the news out first that they'll take indecent liberties with words like "alleged," "apparently" and "according to unnamed source," things that respected publications simply didn't do in the 70s.

You mean except for the fact that the entire crucial Watergate story was based on "an unnamed source"?

[IDBillzFan]

You mean except for the fact that the entire crucial Watergate story was based on "an unnamed source"?

But the media wasn't taking indecent liberties with such a phrase back then, as opposed to how freely it is used today.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's exactly the point of the piece I'm writing.

 

Interestingly, it was Redford that pushed them to put together the book because he subsequently purchased the movie rights.

 

My question is: were the famous prior to the the book/movie?

 

Or did the movie make them famous?

Depends on what you mean. I am not sure how many copies of the book were sold before the film came out but it was a big bestseller. And Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post had already won the Pulitzer Prize for the reporting I think, well before the movie came out. Plus, I think they had been publishing stories on it for almost two years before Nixon actually resigned in 1974.

 

Redford did buy the rights to the book early, the same year it came out, 1974, but there were all kinds of scripts written and the film didn't come out for two more years, 1976, which was 4 years after the story broke.

 

And the book wasn't really very much like the movie if I recall. Redford was the one who thought of the story as this mystery thriller.

[Kelly the Dog]

But the media wasn't taking indecent liberties with such a phrase back then, as opposed to how freely it is used today.

 

True, but i think it is a big mistake to mistrust any story simply because it has "unnamed sources". We would hardly have any good reporting without unnamed sources.

[IDBillzFan]

True, but i think it is a big mistake to mistrust any story simply because it has "unnamed sources". We would hardly have any good reporting without unnamed sources.

I don't automatically discount a story just because the author can't name their source because the source's info has to be taken in the context of the entire article. Frankly, I haven't read the local newspaper in a while. I read it online for what's relevant to me, and in fairness, I rarely see the "unnamed source" bit used in the OC Register.

[Chef Jim]

I don't automatically discount a story just because the author can't name their source because the source's info has to be taken in the context of the entire article. Frankly, I haven't read the local newspaper in a while. I read it online for what's relevant to me, and in fairness, I rarely see the "unnamed source" bit used in the OC Register.

 

Should the mods just create a separate board for you two to "chat"?

[IDBillzFan]

Should the mods just create a separate board for you two to "chat"?

We used to have one, but Pelosi made the moderators ban us both.

[The Big Cat]

Depends on what you mean. I am not sure how many copies of the book were sold before the film came out but it was a big bestseller. And Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post had already won the Pulitzer Prize for the reporting I think, well before the movie came out. Plus, I think they had been publishing stories on it for almost two years before Nixon actually resigned in 1974.

 

Redford did buy the rights to the book early, the same year it came out, 1974, but there were all kinds of scripts written and the film didn't come out for two more years, 1976, which was 4 years after the story broke.

 

And the book wasn't really very much like the movie if I recall. Redford was the one who thought of the story as this mystery thriller.

 

Thanks!

 

I really appreciate the historical context!

 

I'm definitely staying with the "celebrity" angle, but I'm going to go ahead and assume--for poetic sake--that said celebrity can be more aptly attributed to their portrayal by the stars-of-the-day.

 

It helps me make the point that it's not about the journalism, it's not about the story, it's about the reporter, and that's why the "MM" is a load of horse crap.

[Kelly the Dog]

Thanks!

 

I really appreciate the historical context!

 

I'm definitely staying with the "celebrity" angle, but I'm going to go ahead and assume--for poetic sake--that said celebrity can be more aptly attributed to their portrayal by the stars-of-the-day.

 

It helps me make the point that it's not about the journalism, it's not about the story, it's about the reporter, and that's why the "MM" is a load of horse crap.

This is an interesting account of what happened, although I dont know the veracity of it. But it implies that Redford bought it before it was even released as a book, and they changed the book to read like the thriller, with Deep Throat.

 

http://www.lpatrickgrayiii.com/images/wate...0BlueNotice.pdf

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Seriously.

 

I'm curious about how "famous" Woodward and Bernstein were prior to their depictions by Redford and Hoffman.

 

As their pieces were being published by the Washington Post, did anyone outside the beltway care about WandB? Were they doing nightly interviews for the national news? Did their names EVER come up on the national news?

 

Even AFTER the scandal came to fruition and the President resigned, did anyone know their names until the movie came out?

 

They were virtually unknown. They jobs at a respectable big city newspaper, and they had earned their way there. But they were not famous. In those days, a reporter might not even get byline on a story he/she might write.

[Chef Jim]

They were virtually unknown. They jobs at a respectable big city newspaper, and they had earned their way there. But they were not famous. In those days, a reporter might not even get byline on a story he/she might write.

 

I don't know but maybe it's because the have a hard time letting go of the past here in SF but the Chronicle runs article about Herb Caen (a columnist for the paper years ago) as if he was god. I was so sick of hearing about him a few weeks ago.

[The Big Cat]

Follow Up Question:

 

Were WnB's articles printed in the Post and the Post alone?

 

Was there such thing as syndicating articles in other papers then?

 

Or, if you wanted to read their work, did you have to buy a Washington Post?

 

Thanks in advance!