How Woodward and Bernstein Made Journalism Worse

Settle down. I'm sure the title of this post has landed offensively upon your inner ear. Before we proceed, I should clarify that the actions taken by Woodward and Bernstein in breaking the Watergate scandal were necessary; their reporting was good and the result of that reporting was the finest accomplishment of modern journalism.

Can you imagine the sense of empowerment that accompanied that day in 1973 for every American, not just the journalists? Our first amendment was functioning in full sway. The duties of the free press, defined in the constitution as a regulatory system, had never been so well affirmed. On that day, the citizen must have felt that his will was too strong for the grasp of any tyrant. The people were victorious. Our system was best.

Or maybe not everyone saw it that way. In 1973, applications for Journalism school were at an all time high. But, for the generation that was still young at the time of Watergate, a deep distrust for authority was harbored within their little souls. That generation, the boomers/generation X, grew up to be notoriously anti-authoritarian. They idolized Woodward and Bernstein as rebels -- the omniscient badasses who strayed from the pack, stood up against all odds and triumphed for humanity.

Woodward and Bernstein weren't omniscient. They were men, and as men do, they were bound to make mistakes. Carl Bernstein has written at least 4 books on the Watergate scandal that I know of (dare I say coasting?), while Woodward has moved on with his career, his particular faults shall be discussed later. Before that, however, I must state my empathy for the dynamic duo. In their shoes very few of us would do any differently.

What Woodward and Bernstein did in breaking Watergate, though necessary, was not good reporting. Their style was sloppy and their sources were anonymous. They broke the rules of journalism again and again, against the behest of their editors, but for a very good reason.

Since Watergate, Bob Woodward has published stories and books that use anonymous sources, much like he did in breaking the Watergate scandal. However, these methods are no longer necessary. Never again in his career has he broke a story with the social import of Watergate. This method of reporting is irresponsible and lazy in any other context.

Due to the piety they achieved after Watergate and their continuation of practices used in breaking Watergate, their style has become more and more prevalent within the world of Journalism. The credibility of a source has gradually lost value, degrading to where it stands today. Whereas most news today will abstain from the use of anonymous sources, it is not uncommon to see news credited to rumor, speculation or twitter (CNN, looking at you). All of these things are equally untrustworthy as a news source, and should be avoided as a general rule of thumb.

But, thanks to the success of Woodward and Bernstein, the focus of Journalism has switched from credibility to controversy. People crave the limelight and often fail to think of consequences. This is a mistake that is as innately human as it was to Woodward and Bernstein. They were Journalism's greatest moment, but they fostered some of it's very worst.