Blog: Investigating "All the President's Men"

The reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein stands out in the annals of journalism history as one of the greatest instances of investigative reporting of all time. Through their dedication to solid fact-finding and persistence in pursuing the truth, “Woodstein,” as they came to be called, uncovered one of the biggest political coverup plots in recent history, changed the course of a presidency and left a permanent mark on the world of journalism. Their process of investigative reporting stood apart from others in the field at the time and is still used as the model for journalists pursuing an investigation today.  

Woodward and Bernstein combined the first few steps of the Paul Williams Way of reporting, considered to be the general process for investigative reporting. The conception, feasibility study, and go/no-go decision happened simultaneously with the reporters’ base building of the subject as they unraveled the layers and connections of the Watergate break-in that revealed it was more than just some isolated spying incident. From there, they adhered more to the traditional order of storyboarding the Paul Williams Way with conducting original research, evaluating, filling in gaps, more evaluation, writing & rewriting and publishing.

Woodward and Bernstein were relentless in their pursuit of both stored and human sources. They relied heavily on secondary and primary documents to confirm the information they received from human sources, and to point them in the right direction as the investigation continued. For example, when trying to find Kenneth H. Dahlberg in connection with a $25,000 check, Woodward used a newspaper photo clipping that identified Dahlberg as a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross.

Along this same line, Woodward and Bernstein used records to compile data that informed their investigation. The Investigative Reporter’s Handbook notes sources like campaign finance reports specifically as a source of data, and campaign finance data was critical to the reporters’ investigation as they followed the trail of money from the Watergate burglary to the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).

Following people trails was arguably the most vital component of Woodward and Bernstein’s investigation. Whistleblowers (such as “Deep Throat”), former and current employees at CREEP, and others were used as the basis of their story. They tried to meet with or interview any person whose name popped up during their investigation.

In the movie, they identified themselves as reporters with the Washington Post any time they reached out to a source or tried to get an interview and did not pretend to be other people to get information. However, at times their dedication to uncovering the truth lead them closer to the line of ethical issues. For example, several times their sources for the story were based on the personal testimony of separate human sources, and the information needed verified by corroboration. In these instances, the reporters used a little bit of trickery more than once to get sources to confirm information, such as by pretending to know more than they did so that sources would volunteer information and confirm what they suspected.

Though Woodward began the story as a solo reporter, Bernstein was soon looped in and they researched and wrote together. Anytime they had new information to report or had a new story, they consulted with their editors who called out weak spots in their reporting—even if it meant putting the entire story on hold because there wasn't enough solid information. Their editors collaborated with higher-ups in the paper along the way to make sure the paper wasn’t going to put itself in a bad situation with a weak or libelous story.

Familiarity with the executive branch was key to this story, as Woodward found out early on when he didn’t recognize the name of Charles Colson, special counsel to the President. The reporters called on personal connections they had within the executive branch to learn more about the structure and connect the dots between players.

Politically, this was perhaps the first instance of a deep trail of corruption being exposed at the highest level—that of the U.S. presidency. The depth of the deception and trickery was so shocking that it forever ruined the reputation of former president Nixon and his entire administration. From a reporting standpoint, this was a landmark case, as Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting demonstrated the power of the media as a watchdog on the government like never before.

One of the largest obstacles Woodstein faced was having to convince reluctant sources to talk with them. They had to balance persistence with tact as they tried to coax people connected with the case to share more information. For The Post overall, they faced threats of lawsuits and losing their credibility as the White House continually denied the allegations, verbally attacked the paper and other papers backed off the case.

Woodward and Bernstein took a very physical approach to—knocking on doors, going to physical locations, and trying to catch people in person to get an interview. When they hit dead ends, they would then go back to sources (both stored and human) to get new angles and new directions to investigate until they reached something of value. Today, much of the backgrounding information that the reporters gathered by “hitting the pavement” would probably be gathered primarily online before a reporter made the trip to a physical location—if the reporter decided to go somewhere in person at all.

As the story continued to unravel, Woodward and Bernstein showed the same diligence and dedication in their reporting—such as with the article “Break-In Memo Sent to Ehrlichman,” about a separate break-in incident related to the whole Watergate coverup. The article relied on multiple anonymous sources and referenced public records to back up claims. Relying almost entirely on anonymous sources was a challenge to the credibility of Woodstein’s reporting that they faced throughout their time investigating Watergate, though the truthfulness of their claims was ultimately proved.

Prior to watching “All the President’s Men,” I was unaware of the extent to which an editor is sometimes involved in the reporting of a story. Woodward and Bernstein had to consult with their editors constantly throughout the reporting process to keep their reporting on track and in check. Their relationship with the editors was tense at times but built on mutual trust—trust from them that the editors had the best interests of the paper and the public in mind, and trust from the editors that the reporters actually knew what they were doing.

One of the key themes of the movie is persistence—both Woodward and Bernstein are fairly relentless in trying to get as much information as they possibly can out of anyone connected with the case. Persistence can be looked down upon as being insensitive or pushy, but I believe that a good journalist is willing to be a little bit uncomfortable in order to hold his or her reporting to the highest possible standard. Woodstein’s willingness to go out and meet people face to face or track down leads at physical locations is another element of reporting that is too often forgotten in the age of the Internet.

Aside from Woodward and Bernstein, I think editor Harry Rosenfeld, executive editor Ben Bradlee, and the bookkeeper for CREEP are three of the most important characters in this story. Rosenfeld and Bradlee’s impact on the story is obvious—as editors, their balance of faith in the reporters and skepticism of the story kept Woodstein motivated and on track to investigate well. But the bookkeeper, as one of the first CREEP employees convinced to speak to the reporters, represents the everyday people that can be enabled to shed light on an issue by thorough investigative reporters.

If given the opportunity to speak with Woodward and Bernstein today, I would ask them how they were able to continue to pursue this story in the face of such adversity. Their dedication to uncovering the truth for the good of the nation is an example for all journalists with similar aspirations and an inspiration to keep working for it.