ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN
SUBJECTS — U.S./1945 – 1991 & Politics (the Watergate scandal, Nixon, Woodward & Bernstein);
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING — Courage; Teamwork;
MORAL-ETHICAL EMPHASIS — Trustworthiness; Responsibility; Fairness; Citizenship.
AGE; 12+; MPAA Rating — PG;
Drama; 1976; 135 minutes; Color. Available from Amazon.com.
MOVIE WORKSHEETS & STUDENT HANDOUTS
TWM offers the following worksheets to keep students’ minds on the movie and direct them to the lessons that can be learned from the film.
Film Study Worksheet for a Documentary (because the film is like a documentary in its successful attempts to be accurate); and
Teachers can modify the movie worksheets to fit the needs of each class. See also TWM’s Historical Fiction in Film Cross-Curricular Homework Project.
This movie describes how two young reporters from the Washington Post broke and pursued the story of the Watergate scandal (1972 – 1975). All the President’s Men has become the way that many, if not most, Americans remember this important event in U.S. history.
SELECTED AWARDS & CAST
1976 Academy Awards: Best Supporting Actor (Robards), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Sound; 1976 New York Film Critics Awards: Best Film, Best Director (Pakula), Best Supporting Actor (Robards); 1976 Writers Guild of America Awards: Best Adapted Screenplay; 1976 Academy Awards Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director (Pakula), Best Supporting Actress (Alexander), Best Film Editing.
Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Robards Jr., Martin Balsam, Jane Alexander, Hal Holbrook, F. Murray Abraham, Stephen Collins, Lindsay Crouse.
Alan J. Pakula.
Benrstein — the Reporters
BENEFITS OF THE MOVIE
All the President’s Men describes an important episode in American history in which a President and his co-conspirators attempted the wholesale subversion of the U.S. Constitution and the democratic process. It accurately describes the work of newspaper reporters working to expose criminal activities of high government officials. It displays the inner workings of a major newspaper.
Students will learn about the Watergate Scandal and its many implications through the Handout, the movie, the discussion questions, and the assignments.
MODERATE. The movie contains a substantial amount of profanity, with the “F” word used frequently.
This is a great film to show children who are learning about 20th century U.S. history. Before watching the movie, tell your kids that it shows how two young reporters in their late 20s started the process that forced the most powerful man in the world to leave his office in disgrace. After watching the movie be sure to tell your children that the reporters were not alone in trying to stop corruption in the government. Describe the important roles played by many other people and government agencies in calling Nixon and his aides to account for their crimes. Kids might also be interested in the identity of Deep Throat.
DEEP THROAT, HERO OR VILLAIN?
In June of 2005 when Deep Throat was 91 years old and suffered from dementia, his family disclosed his identity. He was W. Mark Felt, who had been second in command of the FBI during much of the Watergate period. Here are some highlights of Mr. Felt’s career:
- Over a 31 year career, from 1942 to 1973, Mr. Felt worked his way up the FBI career ladder. By 1972 Mr. Felt was third in command of the Bureau. J. Edgar Hoover was the first director of the FBI and built the organization. Hoover kept secret files on many political leaders, including presidents, and used those files to keep his post at the FBI. Few dared speak against him when he was alive, but after he died many of his abuses of power became known and his reputation was badly tarnished. However, Mr. Felt has always remained loyal to Hoover and to Hoover’s legacy at the FBI.
- J. Edgar Hoover died in office on May 2, 1972. His Associate Director, Clyde A. Tolson, had been in failing health and he resigned a week later. Mr. Felt was the logical choice to move up to the post of director, and he lobbied for the job. However, Nixon wanted to control the FBI as he controlled the CIA, the Justice Department and other parts of the government. See, for example, Oval Office Transcript (Nixon and Haldeman, June 23, 1972) . He appointed a political loyalist, L. Patrick Gray, III, as acting FBI director. Mr. Felt, now second in command at the FBI, was disappointed and angry. He was also concerned about Nixon’s attempt to interfere with the independence of the FBI. During his tenure as acting director, Mr. Gray was absent from Washington much of the time, either because of illness or traveling to FBI field offices. In Mr. Gray’s absence, the administration of the FBI was left to Mr. Felt. Mr. Gray later resigned in disgrace after it was revealed that on instructions of the White House he had burned files that incriminated a White House aide.
- Mr. Felt served as Woodward’s deep background source on Watergate beginning in June of 1972. During that time, he was suspected by the Nixon White House of being Deep Throat, but he was defended by Mr. Gray. During 1972 and 1973 Mr. Felt was placed in charge of several attempts to find leaks from the FBI. In this capacity, he was able to deflect attention away from himself. See How Deep Throat Fooled the FBI.
- From the beginning, Mr. Felt established strict ground rules with Bob Woodward: he would not provide information, and he could never be quoted; he would confirm facts that they had obtained elsewhere and occasionally add some perspective.
- In the early 1970s, the Weather Underground, a small domestic terrorist organization, had planted bombs at the Capitol, the State Department, and the Pentagon. On nine occasions in 1972 and 1973, Mr. Felt and other FBI administrators authorized FBI agents to break into homes of persons linked to the Weather Underground without a search warrant.
- In 1976, many FBI agents were under investigation for their roles in the “black bag jobs”. Mr. Felt publicly announced that he had ordered the break-ins. He contended that individual agents had merely been following orders and should not be prosecuted. He claimed that the black bag jobs were justified and stated that he would do it again if faced with the same circumstance. Admitting that the break-ins were “extralegal,” he asserted that they protected the “greater good”. Mr. Felt and another FBI official, Edward S. Miller, were indicted, tried, and convicted for the conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens by searching their homes without warrants. Seven hundred current and former FBI agents demonstrated on Felt’s behalf outside the courthouse. Ironically, Richard Nixon and several of his assistants testified for the defense at the trial. Their claim was that black bag jobs had been authorized by presidents in foreign intelligence and counterespionage investigations beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Felt and Miller.
- In 1980, Mr. Felt and Mr. Miller were pardoned by President Reagan. The proclamation of the pardon stated that:
Their convictions in the U.S. District Court, on appeal at the time I signed the pardons, grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government.
America was at war in 1972, and Messrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country. They have never denied their actions, but, in fact, came forward to acknowledge them publicly in order to relieve their subordinate agents from criminal actions.
Four years ago, thousands of draft evaders and others who violated the Selective Service laws were unconditionally pardoned by my predecessor. America was generous to those who refused to serve their country in the Vietnam war. We can be no less generous to two men who acted on high principle to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation.
- The pardon was criticized as a political gesture because President Reagan had not consulted the prosecutors before issuing the pardon. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Felt said, “I would warrant that whoever is responsible for the pardons did not read the record of the trial and did not know the facts of the case.”Joe Pichirallo, “Judge Allows Appeals by Ex-Officials Of FBI Despite Pardons by Reagan,” The Washington Post.
After the pardon, former President Nixon, still not aware that Mr. Felt was Deep Throat, sent him a bottle of champagne with the message, ” Justice always prevails.”
There has been much speculation about why Mr. Felt agreed to serve as a source for the Washington Post. Obviously he had a patriot’s justifiable concern about the criminal conspiracy emanating from the Nixon White House. He was also probably concerned about Nixon’s attempts to dominate and subvert the FBI, an organization to which Felt had devoted his life. Finally, he may have also been angry over the fact that after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime head of the FBI, Nixon passed over Mr. Felt and appointed a politically pliable Nixon loyalist to the post of FBI director.
OTHER BACKGROUND NOTES
- Since the late 20th Century, the two premier newspapers in the U.S. have been the Washington Post and the New York Times. They are in constant competition with each other.
- After Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became President and, within a month, pardoned Nixon for all of his Watergate-related crimes. Ford to this day denies that he made a deal to pardon Nixon. The Nixon pardon is considered the primary reason why Ford lost his effort to be elected President in his own right in the 1976 elections.
- The Library of Congress is the national library of the United States. Established in 1800, it is now the largest library in the world. It receives two free copies of each book copyrighted in the United States. Each book copyrighted in the United States is given a Library of Congress number. There is also a library in the White House for use by White House staff. This library figured heavily in the story of the movie.
- By law, the CIA cannot operate inside the territorial limits of the U.S. The members of the CIA, the National Security Agency (which conducts electronic spying), the military intelligence services, and the other agencies of the Government which conduct overseas intelligence gathering are called “the Intelligence Community.” See Wikipedia Article on the U.S. Intelligence Community.
- During the Watergate scandal, it came out that FBI agents, on orders from the White House, had conducted burglaries of files from the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who gave the press copies of the Pentagon Papers, a confidential government history, and analysis of the Vietnam war.
- The city of Miami is located in Dade County, Florida. A district attorney (sometimes called a state’s attorney or city attorney) is a state or local government official who prosecutes violations of state laws. The Dade County District Attorney was involved because some of the illegal activities occurred in Dade County and were violations of state law.
THE USE OF LIGHT AND IMAGE IN THE MOVIE
The light in the Washington Post press-room is bright, but most of the exterior scenes are in dark, dimly lit streets or parking garages. This is where the reporters do their detective work. Note also the claustrophobic effect of the small living spaces occupied by the reporters and the CREEP employees. The government buildings are large and seemingly immovable while the exterior photographs of the reporters often shows them as small creatures against the facade of the buildings.
Deep Throat is, of course, filmed in shadow. Woodward meets him in parking garages in the dead of night. These are frightening and dangerous places.
As Woodward and Bernstein research White House withdrawals of books in the Library of Congress, the camera shows Woodward and Bernstein at the center of concentric rings of research desks. As the camera pulls back to the high-domed ceiling, they appear so small that they are almost insignificant.
USING THE MOVIE IN THE CLASSROOM
Enrichment Worksheets are a TWM innovation containing questions designed to get students thinking. Questions are focused on comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis or evaluation. Questions can be answered in class or as homework, as quick writes, journal entries, formal essays, or research papers. For a version of the Worksheet in word processing format, click here.
Click here to review the Pre-Viewing Enrichment Worksheet
PRE-VIEWING ENRICHMENT WORKSHEET FOR ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL AND THE DOWNFALL OF RICHARD NIXON
During the 20th century, the executive branch of the U.S. government gained power as the country faced new and complex challenges and became increasingly involved in world affairs. Historians coined the term “the Imperial Presidency” to describe this phenomenon. In the early 1970s Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, began to act is if he were above the law to ensure reelection in 1972 and thus maintain the power of the executive branch. The President and his close aides authorized a number of illegal campaign tactics. One of them was an attempt to break into and bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office complex. The burglars were caught in the act on June 17, 1972. Nixon and his aides tried to cover up their own involvement through perjury, payoffs and the destruction of evidence. This obstruction of justice, a felony, was planned and executed from the White House and the office of the Attorney General of the United States.
What advantages could be gained in a presidential campaign by spying on the opposition?
Another example of the anti-democratic efforts of the Nixon White House was the successful effort to destroy the fledgling presidential campaign of Maine Senator Edmund Muskie. Nixon and his political operatives feared Muskie as a potential opponent. Therefore, they sought to remove him from the Democratic primaries for president through a series of “dirty tricks,” such as forged letters on Citizens for Muskie letterhead making false charges of sexual misconduct against other candidates, disrupting a fundraising dinner, placing advertisements harmful to Muskie in newspapers and on radio stations, disrupting rallies by assigning agents to appear with posters and ask embarrassing questions, etc. With Muskie out of the way, the Democrats nominated South Dakota Senator George McGovern, a much easier candidate for Nixon to beat. Donald Segretti, the political operative in charge of the dirty tricks campaign, had 28 paid agents working for him in 12 states. Segretti was later sentenced to six months in federal prison on three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign literature.
In what ways do “dirty tricks” played upon an opponent in an election actually undermine the democratic process?
Much of the cover-up, including distribution of money from a slush fund, was directed by the Attorney General of the United States, the man charged with seeing that the laws are enforced and obeyed. The two top aides to the President were active in the cover-up. Nixon and his aides spread the corruption to several other law enforcement agencies. The CIA was enlisted to falsely tell the FBI that the Watergate Investigation was harming national security and that the FBI should back off. The FBI was recruited for “black bag jobs” in which agents secretly searched homes and offices without warrants. The acting head of the FBI resigned in disgrace after admitting that he had burned evidence to keep it from coming to light.
How might ethical CIA and FBI agents have dealt with the illegal acts assigned to them in Nixon’s efforts to assure reelection?
Crucial pieces of what came to be called the “Watergate scandal” were first uncovered by two junior reporters from the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This movie is a dramatization of their experiences. Bob Woodward developed a source, a person highly placed in the Administration, who did not want to be identified. Woodward and Bernstein kept the identity of “Deep Throat” secret for more than 30 years. After Bernstein and Woodward broke the story, other newspapers became involved. In 2005, Deep Throat’s family revealed his identity. His name was Mark Felt who had been second in command of the FBI at that time.
Deep Throat served in the capacity we now call a whistleblower, one who provides information about illegal or suspect activities. There are laws now in place to protect such people from retaliation but there are also laws punishing people who leak government secrets. Under what circumstances are people who disclose to the press information about government actions justified?
After the press uncovered evidence of wrongdoing by President Nixon’s aides, the Congress and the courts began to investigate the White House. The Senate formed a Select Committee to Investigate Campaign Practices. The question that dominated the hearings was: “what did the President know and when did he know it?” The Committee’s chairman was North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, who projected the image of a “country lawyer” who used common sense to cut through complex issues and who knew right from wrong. At the beginning of the hearings, Senator Ervin said, “If the many allegations made to this date are true, then the burglars who broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate were in effect breaking into the home of every citizen of the United States. … And if these allegations prove to be true, what they were seeking to steal was not the jewels, money or other precious property of American citizens, but something much more valuable – their most precious heritage: the right to vote in a free election.”
The hearings were televised live. They riveted the nation. The misconduct exposed by the “Watergate Committee” appalled the public and eroded support for the President. The Senate hearings led to the disclosure that President Nixon secretly taped most of his meetings in the White House. The tapes were promptly subpoenaed by the Committee but Nixon refused to provide them. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Nixon to produce the tapes. The tapes were very damaging to the President, and there was one 18 and a half minute erasure of a crucial meeting. One of the tapes that President Nixon didn’t want disclosed showed him conspiring with his top aide, John Haldeman, to get the CIA to falsely tell the FBI that national security required the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate break-in.
When should government officials refuse to obey a lawful order of the President of the United States?
Public pressure had forced Nixon to agree to the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate Watergate related crimes. The prosecutor was selected by Nixon’s new attorney general, Elliott Richardson. The Special Prosecutor was Archibald Cox, a Harvard Law School professor. Cox subpoenaed the White House tapes. When Cox would not drop the subpoena (and as it became apparent that he would vigorously prosecute White House aides), Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. During his confirmation hearings, Richardson had promised the Senate that he would give Cox complete freedom in the investigation. Richardson refused the President’s order and resigned in protest. Nixon then demanded that the second in command at the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, fire Cox. Ruckelshaus had also promised the Senate that the Special Prosecutor would have complete freedom. Ruckelshaus, too, resigned rather than fire Mr. Cox. Finally, Nixon found someone who would do his bidding. The third in line at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork (who had made no promises about the Special Prosecutor to the Senate) followed the President’s order and fired Cox. This chain of events occurred on a Saturday evening and came to be called the “Saturday Night Massacre.” It dealt a devastating blow to Nixon’s credibility. The next week articles of impeachment of the President were introduced in the Congress. The firing of Cox didn’t do Mr. Nixon much good. The new Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, vigorously pursued the investigation and continued to seek the tapes.
The Special Prosecutor’s investigation was aided by U.S. District Court Judge John J. Sirica, who was assigned the case of the original Watergate burglars. Called “Maximum John” because of the long sentences that he customarily handed out to convicted defendants in criminal cases. Judge Sirica threatened the Watergate burglars with long prison terms if they didn’t cooperate with the government. One of them, James McCord, a former FBI and CIA agent who worked as security director for the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) at the time of the burglary, was the first to crack. (McCord was responsible for the care of a mentally handicapped child and didn’t know what would happen to the child if McCord went to jail.) He wrote a letter to Judge Sirica stating that the Watergate burglars had been pressured to enter guilty pleas to avoid the publicity of a trial and that perjury had been committed. He was spared jail in return for cooperating with the prosecutors and the Senate Watergate Committee.
James McCord as a first time offender could normally count on a short prison sentence or even a suspended sentence and probation if he was convicted. What do you think about Judge Sirica’s actions in threatening to sentence McCord and the other defendants to extraordinarily long prison sentences if they did not provide information on those who had hired them to break into the Democratic Party’s national headquarters?
The process for removing a president from office begins with impeachment by the House of Representatives. (1) The appropriate committee will hold hearings and draw up articles of impeachment. (2) If the House votes to impeach the President, it will (3) appoint a committee to prosecute the President in a (4) trial the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial in the Senate. A vote of two-thirds of the Senate is required to convict the President and remove him from office. U.S. Constitution, Article I, sections 2 and 3.
In 1973, when the House of Representatives began to consider articles of impeachment against President Nixon, the chairman of the committee in charge was Peter Rodino, a Democrat. Congressman Rodino went to great lengths to make the proceedings of the committee non-partisan. He took the unusual step of sharing with the ranking Republican member of the committee the power to subpoena witnesses. (This was usually reserved for committee chairmen.) He agreed to call as witnesses anyone suggested by the President’s attorneys. As the revelations continued to come out, Republican members of the Committee who had initially voted against impeachment changed their minds. Eventually, the Committee, with substantial Republican support, reported three Articles of Impeachment to the full House of Representatives: (1) obstruction of justice in the Watergate case, (2) violating the constitutional rights of citizens, and (3) refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas. The matter never reached a vote by the entire House of Representatives. When President Nixon’s allies told him that impeachment by the House was sure to occur and that the votes did not exist in the Senate to prevent his conviction and removal from office, President Nixon resigned. The date was August 9, 1974.
In your own words, what are the four steps that result in a president’s impeachment?
After Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford became President and, within a month, pardoned Nixon for all of his Watergate related crimes. Ford to this day denies that he made a deal to pardon Nixon. The Nixon pardon is considered the primary reason why Ford lost his effort to be elected President in his own right in the 1976 elections. Mr. Ford is the only President to serve who was not elected by the people. President Ford had been a Republican leader in the Congress. He was appointed Vice President by Nixon when Nixon’s first Vice President, Spiro Agnew, resigned in a plea bargain with prosecutors. Apparently Agnew had been taking payoffs from people interested in government business while he was Vice President.
Two Attorney Generals of the U.S. appointed by Nixon, plus thirty of Nixon’s closest aides, were convicted of crimes stemming from the burglary, the cover-up, and the Nixon administration’s illegal efforts to eliminate the most viable candidates in the 1972 Democratic Presidential primaries. About half served time in federal prison. Nixon was spared trial and possible imprisonment when President Ford granted him a pardon from all crimes that he may have committed while President. Richard Nixon is the only U.S. President to resign from office.
The Watergate scandal established what most Americans had known all along, that the President was not above the law.
Do you think it was right that Nixon was pardoned for any crimes he may have committed while in office? Be sure to give support for your opinion.
Not available to the public at the time of the Watergate hearings and kept secret when Bernstein and Woodward were busy with their investigation, is the biographical details in the character of the informant called “Deep Throat.”In June of 2005 when he was 91 years old and suffered from dementia, his family disclosed his identity. He was W. Mark Felt, who had been second in command of the FBI during much of the Watergate period.
Over a 31 year career, from 1942 to 1973, Mr. Felt worked his way up the FBI career ladder. By 1972 Mr. Felt was third in command of the Bureau. J. Edgar Hoover was the first director of the FBI and built the organization. Hoover kept secret files on many political leaders, including presidents, and used those files to keep his post at the FBI. Few dared speak against him when he was alive, but after he died many of his abuses of power became known and his reputation was badly tarnished. However, Mr. Felt has always remained loyal to Hoover and to Hoover’s legacy at the FBI.
J. Edgar Hoover died in office on May 2, 1972. His Associate Director, Clyde A. Tolson, had been in failing health and he resigned a week later. Mr. Felt was the logical choice to move up to the post of director, and he lobbied for the job. However, Nixon wanted to control the FBI as he controlled the CIA, the Justice Department and other parts of the government. He appointed a political loyalist, L. Patrick Gray, III, as acting FBI director. Mr. Felt, now second in command at the FBI, was disappointed and angry. He was also concerned about Nixon’s attempt to interfere with the independence of the FBI. During his tenure as acting director, Mr. Gray was absent from Washington much of the time, either because of illness or traveling to FBI field offices. In Mr. Gray’s absence, the administration of the FBI was left to Mr. Felt. Mr. Gray later resigned in disgrace after it was revealed that on instructions of the White House he had burned files that incriminated a White House aide.
Mr. Felt served as Woodward’s background source on Watergate beginning in June of 1972. During that time, he was suspected by the Nixon White House of being Deep Throat, but he was defended by Mr. Gray. During 1972 and 1973 Mr. Felt was placed in charge of several attempts to find leaks from the FBI. In this capacity he was able to deflect attention away from himself. From the beginning, Mr. Felt established strict ground rules with Bob Woodward: he would not provide information and he could never be quoted; he would confirm facts that they had obtained elsewhere and occasionally add some perspective.
What irony lies in Felt’s having been assigned to find leaks in the FBI?
In 1976, many FBI agents were under investigation for their roles in the “black bag jobs”. Mr. Felt publicly announced that he had ordered the break-ins. He contended that individual agents had merely been following orders and should not be prosecuted. He claimed that the black bag jobs were justified and stated that he would do it again if faced with the same circumstance. Admitting that the break-ins were “extralegal” he asserted that they protected the “greater good.” In the early 1970’s, Mr. Felt and other FBI administrators authorized FBI agents to break into homes of persons linked to those involved in the Weather Underground, a small domestic terrorist organization. No search warrants were issued. Later, Mr. Felt and another FBI official, Edward S. Miller, were indicted, tried and convicted for the conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens by searching their homes without warrants. Seven hundred current and former FBI agents demonstrated on Mr. Felt’s behalf outside the courthouse. Ironically, Richard Nixon and several of his assistants testified for the defense at the trial. Their claim was that black bag jobs had been authorized by presidents in foreign intelligence and counterespionage investigations beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Felt and Miller who were both pardoned by President Reagan. The proclamation of the pardon stated the following:
“Their convictions in the U.S. District Court, on appeal at the time I signed the pardons, grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country. The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government.
America was at war in 1972, and Mssrs. Felt and Miller followed procedures they believed essential to keep the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States advised of the activities of hostile foreign powers and their collaborators in this country. They have never denied their actions, but, in fact, came forward to acknowledge them publicly in order to relieve their subordinate agents from criminal actions.
Four years ago, thousands of draft evaders and others who violated the Selective Service laws were unconditionally pardoned by my predecessor. America was generous to those who refused to serve their country in the Vietnam War. We can be no less generous to two men who acted on high principle to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation”
The pardon was criticized as a political gesture because President Reagan had not consulted the prosecutors before issuing the pardon. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Felt said, “I would warrant that whoever is responsible for the pardons did not read the record of the trial and did not know the facts of the case.” After the pardon, former President Nixon, still not aware that Mr. Felt was Deep Throat, sent him a bottle of champagne with the message, “Justice always prevails.”
Do you believe that there should be such a thing as a presidential pardon? Be sure to back up your opinion.
There has been much speculation about why Mr. Felt agreed to serve as a source for the Washington Post. He may have had a patriot’s justifiable concern about the criminal conspiracy emanating from the Nixon White House. He may have been concerned about Nixon’s attempts to dominate and subvert the FBI, an organization to which Felt had devoted his life. Finally, he may have also been angry over the fact that after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime head of the FBI, Nixon passed over Mr. Felt and appointed a politically pliable Nixon loyalist to the post of FBI director. Further difficulties during the Watergate scandal surfaced when it came out that FBI agents, on orders from the White House, had conducted burglaries of files from the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who gave the press copies of the Pentagon Papers, a confidential government history and analysis of the Vietnam War that revealed a considerable amount of governmental dissembling in perpetrating the war.
Do you see Mr. Felt as a hero or as a villain? Be sure to back up your opinion.
Most questions asked on the background information worksheet are appropriate for discussion. The following questions are not addressed in the worksheet.
1. What might have happened had Nixon and his aides succeeded in their illegal efforts to undermine the election?
This question calls for speculation, and all answers that can be supported are acceptable. Here are some valid points: Look at the 1972 Presidential election. Nixon had been able to disable the candidates (like Senator Ed Muskie of Maine) who he feared could beat him and ensure that the Democrats nominated George McGovern, who Nixon believed he could easily beat. Nixon had an “enemies list” and was using agencies of the federal government such as the IRS to go after them. The democratic process was, and would have continued to be, seriously impaired.
2. The government has taken the position that reporters must disclose their confidential sources when called to testify in a grand jury or criminal proceeding. Had Woodward and Bernstein been forced to identify their source in the Watergate hearings, what would have happened to the story?
All answers that are logical and can be supported are acceptable. Here is a likely scenario. Bernstein & Woodward would have refused to testify and eventually they would have been sent to jail for criminal contempt of court. They would have been kept in jail until either he decided to testify or the grand jury was dismissed or the trial was over. This could have stopped the story and intimidated other reporters from working on the story. In the long run, if sources know that disclosure of their identity can be compelled by the courts, they will be reluctant to come forward. It’s not every reporter who will go to jail to protect a source.
3. One of the reporters involved in the breaking of the story of the Watergate scandal said that the important thing wasn’t that they brought down the president of the United States. The important thing was that they made the system work. Do you agree or disagree? Support your position.
All opinions that are logical and can be supported are acceptable. Here are some thoughts on the question. Richard Nixon was just one president in one period of time. However, the idea that the President is not above the law is an enduring principle which was served by the reporters’ actions.
Click here for additional discussion questions.
4. What are the differences and the similarities between President Nixon’s actions in the Watergate scandal and President Clinton’s actions in the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
There is no one correct answer to this two-part question. All well-supported responses acceptable. The following is presented merely to serve as a basis for discussion. Nixon committed several felonies and tried to influence the outcome of an election. He and his henchmen committed many crimes and induced other agencies of government such as the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Department to participate in the wrongdoing. His actions clearly constituted an egregious betrayal of the trust that had been placed in him by the people. President Clinton committed a major indiscretion (having sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky while he was President) and then he committed a felony (perjury) when he lied about it under oath at a deposition in a civil case. It appears that Clinton was able to remain in office because: (1) his actions didn’t directly implicate the electoral process, as Nixon’s did; (2) Clinton, unlike Nixon, had not sought to implicate government agencies in his wrongdoing; (3) Clinton’s actions arose in a personal situation, not directly relating to his duties as President; many people thought he should never have been required to testify about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and (4) there was a perception that the effort to impeach Clinton was partisan, i.e., the Republican prosecutors of President Clinton wanted him out of office because they disagreed with his policies, not so much from any abhorrence of his actions. (Note that during the time the Republican dominated Congress was trying to impeach President Clinton, two Congressional leaders were forced to resign their posts and retire from politics, in part because of their sexual misconduct.)
5. President Ford was appointed to be Vice President by Richard Nixon on December 6, 1973, when the Watergate Scandal was already rocking Nixon’s administration. Some have charged that Mr. Ford was required to promise to pardon Nixon. President Ford has always adamantly denied that there was any quid pro quo that he would pardon Nixon. In his pardon of Nixon, President Ford stated that:
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Do you think that the pardon of former President Nixon was a good thing to do?
There is no one correct answer to this question. A number of concepts that should be considered in a good answer are as follows: Supporting the pardon: Nixon had given his life to service of the U.S.; he had been an effective President in many ways; he had no previous record of criminal misconduct; a trial of a former President on criminal charges could lead to the disclosure of classified secrets; a trial of a former President could divide the country and prevent the wounds of Watergate from healing. Against the pardon: since Nixon had appointed Ford to be his Vice President (Spiro Agnew was forced to resign as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors when it was discovered that he was taking payoffs in cash while he was Vice President of the U.S.) there was an appearance that the appointment was in exchange for the pardon; not even the President is above the law, but the pardon made it seem that he was.
6. Was Mark Felt (“Deep Throat”) a hero, or did he betray his country and his duty to keep secrets?
A public servant has no duty to keep criminal activity secret. Ultimately, Mr. Felt helped to stop a criminal conspiracy in the White House. That was beneficial for the country. What else was he to do? He couldn’t go to the prosecutors. Their boss, the Attorney General of the United States, was a leading member of the conspiracy. He couldn’t go to the President. Nixon was the director of the conspiracy. The fact that Mr. Felt had a personal ax to grind (anger over being passed over for the directorship of the FBI) tells us that his motives may not have been entirely pure, but that is often the case with people who do public spirited acts. The end analysis is that whatever his motives, these secrets should have been disclosed and he did the right thing. The U.S. is a better place because of what Mr. Felt did.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS RELATING TO JOURNALISM
The following six questions should be asked together. The answers to these questions are not contained in the Helpful Background section.
7. What is the role of the anonymous source in American society and governance?
Most journalists believe that anonymous sources are necessary tools of journalism and essential for American democracy. Anonymous sources tell journalists, and through them the public, what is happening behind closed doors. This, of course, can be abused. A source might demand anonymity because his or her information is incorrect or because the information is being planted for a political purpose. (See, for example, the Valerie Plame affair.) Good journalists will be sensitive to this risk and will not allow themselves to be tools of their sources.
8. Jonathan Alter, an editor for Newsweek Magazine, said that “If you don’t know what’s going on in your government, you don’t live in a democracy.” Do you agree or disagree?
Alter was correct because in order to make government responsive to the people, the people must know what’s going on. If public officials know that their actions will be public and that the press will tell the people what they are doing, the government officials are more likely to act in the public interest.
9. Should a reporter disclose his source in this situation: The investigation relates to murder. The source agrees to talk to the journalist only on deep background with a solemn promise from the reporter that the source will never be identified. In the course of the conversation, the reporter becomes convinced that the source is the killer and is trying to use the reporter to spread disinformation to deflect suspicion from the source. What should the reporter do? Does it make a difference if the crime is not as serious as murder?
First, the reporter should not allow him or herself to be used as a tool to spread disinformation. Second, the reporter should go to the police. A promise of anonymity does not relieve the reporter from his or her obligations to obey the law. What if the murderer kills again? It makes no difference that the crime is less serious than murder. All crimes should be reported except perhaps where the crime is the leak of the information. (The next two questions really put this answer to the test.)
10. Is there a difference between Mr. Felt’s actions in leaking information about criminal activities in the government and the leak in the following situation: An experienced diplomat is dispatched to a foreign country to evaluate claims that another country was trying to purchase uranium to make atomic bombs. The White House has publicly taken the position that this has occurred. The investigator reports that the White House is wrong, and this is very embarrassing to the president. Someone in the government, seeking to punish the investigator, leaks the fact that the investigator’s wife is an undercover CIA operative. The journalist to whom the leak was made publishes the story. It is a crime to publish the name of a CIA undercover operative. Should the reporter disclose the name of the CIA operative? Should the reporter be required to divulge the name of the source?
The difference between the two situations is that the leak itself is a criminal act in which someone in the government sought to suppress dissent, by publishing the name of the CIA agent. The journalist, in effect, aided and abetted a crime and government repression at the same time. If the journalist were able to protect his source, no one would know the identity of the criminal. (This example is taken from the Valerie Plame affair which, as of the time this question is written, still has not been completely resolved.) In these circumstances, the reporter should be required to disclose his or her source. In addition, a strong argument could be made that the reporter should be prosecuted for violating the law.
11. A government official with very high-security clearances discloses a history of the government’s involvement in an unpopular war showing that the government lied to the public about the origins of the war and its actions relating to the war. The information is classified and the source, by disclosing it to a reporter, was committing a crime but he was not acting as an agent of the government seeking to punish someone for disagreeing with the White House. Should the reporter be required to disclose his source? Should the source go to jail for his or her actions?
Here, as well, the leak itself is a criminal act, however, the purpose is not to punish those who are critical of the government or dispute its positions. As the law stands now, the reporter must disclose or face jail for contempt. The source, if identified, must be willing to face jail time. His or her action in disclosing the information is a highly patriotic act which has many elements of civil disobedience. (However, classic civil disobedience would require the source to come forward and disclose what he was doing. There would, therefore, be no requirement for the reporter to keep the source confidential.) The answer to this question is the same as to the preceding question, although the sentences meted out to the source should be very different. In the preceding question, the person making the disclosure is committing an act of government repression. In this case, the person making the disclosure is not an agent of government repression.
12. Why did the reporters require that they get at least two sources for each fact that they reported?
Reporters need to corroborate what they hear from sources to make sure that they are right. Reporters, especially on controversial stories, operate in a world of doubt. They must doubt their sources, check their facts frequently, and make sure that the reporters themselves are not jumping to conclusions.
13. What is “investigative journalism” and how does it differ from other types of journalism?
Investigative journalism goes beyond repeating facts reported by other journalists or rehashing announcements of government officials, business people and others in the news. Instead, it seeks out the actual facts. The announcer that you might see on television is not an investigative journalist because he or she just reports what has been told to them by others. They usually haven’t verified the facts themselves.
14. How is the media environment of today different than the media environment of the 1970s?
Differences include: (1) the Internet with blogs and websites that can be cheaply maintained and which do not have the resources to conduct investigative journalism; (2) the proliferation of channels on cable and satellite television; (3) the rise of talk radio; (4) the concentration of the different types of media outlets in the hands of a few large corporations or rich individuals; for example, most large cities have only one dominant newspaper, while in the 1960s most had two or three newspapers competing with each other; and (5) the rise of news organizations with a clear ideological bias who slant the news that they report. Most papers are owned by media conglomerates which also operate television and radio outlets. These are much more heavily regulated than newspapers and much more subject to government pressure. Media self-censorship is a real problem in such a situation. In addition, in a large corporation, the bottom line becomes the most important.
15. It has been said that: “The press is the last resort when other institutions of government and society fail.” What is meant by that?
It is the press which can mobilize the people to restrain politicians who are corrupt or who are not acting in the best interests of the public.
16. If the President and his aides were engaged in a criminal conspiracy today, would they be exposed?
The answer is that we hope so. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” (Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist).
17. What is the tension between a television network and its news divisions and how does that express itself?
Commercial television is primarily in the business of providing entertainment. Serious news shows do not draw the viewers that entertainment draws. Therefore, television news will always be drawn towards being entertainment in order to increase viewership and revenue. It requires great self-discipline for television news organizations to resist the pull to entertainment or to make sure that their entertainment-oriented newscasts carry substantive and important news stories. Usually, they succumb to the profit motive. News shows on television are renowned for their lack of meaningful content and a dearth of investigative reporting.
18. Describe the relationship between journalists and government officials, from both sides.
From the journalists’ side: Journalists need good relationships with government officials to get interviews and information. However, at the same time journalists are charged with investigating the conduct of these public figures and the reputation and prizes for investigative journalism often go to those who expose government misdeeds. From the government officials’ side: They often need journalists to get their message out to the public and sometimes need their help in defeating a bureaucratic or political rival.
19. Do you think that it is significant that Superman, one of America’s great fictional heroic figures, was a newspaperman? Suggested Response: Yes. In the early 20th century Americans had great respect for the press.
Because this film is so close to being a documentary, check out TWM’s Work Sheet for a Documentary Film.
1. Do you think Mark Felt (Deep Throat) was cowardly in not coming forward or was he courageous to put his career at risk to expose the wrongdoing?
First, it should be noted that Mr. Felt’s actions were quite courageous. There was a tremendous risk of exposure. Courage does not require stupidity, nor does it require self-sacrifice when that is not necessary or would not be helpful. Mr. Felt was able to guide the young reporters so that the scandal and the cover-up were exposed. Had these efforts been unsuccessful, then Mr. Felt would have had to face the question of whether his involvement needed to be more active.
2. Why was the partnership between Bernstein and Woodward so effective?
They were both hard-working; neither asked the other to carry more than his share of the work. They each had different strengths that made up for the other’s weaknesses. The primary example was the way their minds worked. If a conclusion had six logical steps Bernstein would jump from A to B to C to G. He had a good instinct for where the facts would lead. Woodward, however, made sure that they also went back and determined the D, E, and F.
3. Who were the people on the team at the Washington Post who exposed the cover-up? What would have happened if any one of them had not worked with the others?
They were Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee (their editor) and Katharine Graham, the publisher. (There were also probably other editors involved.) Had any one of them gotten cold feet or for some other reason stopped working together with the team, the effort would have collapsed
MORAL-ETHICAL EMPHASIS (CHARACTER COUNTS)
Discussion Questions Relating to Ethical Issues will facilitate the use of this film to teach ethical principles and critical viewing. Additional questions are set out below.
(Be honest; Don’t deceive, cheat or steal; Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do; Have the courage to do the right thing; Build a good reputation; Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country)
1. President Nixon was loyal to his friends and associates. This is part of the Pillar of Trustworthiness. Why was Nixon’s loyalty to his friends and associates not only wrong but criminal?
He was dishonest, violating the Pillar of Trustworthiness. Nor did he have the courage to do the right thing which would have disappointed his co-conspirators. Nixon also violated the Pillar of Responsibility by failing to do what he should have done to protect and uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. His actions in the Watergate affair violated the following ethical tests: the Golden Rule, the rule of universality, and the rule of disclosure.
(Do what you are supposed to do; Persevere: keep on trying!; Always do your best; Use self-control; Be self-disciplined; Think before you act — consider the consequences; Be accountable for your choices)
2. How did President Nixon’s actions violate the Pillar of Responsibility?
He broke the law, and he tried to avoid accountability for his choices.
3. Where would we be if Woodward, Bernstein, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Attorney General Elliott Richardson, Judge John Sirica, and many others had not followed the ethical principle of Responsibility?
We would have a presidency that was above the law and could run roughshod over the rights of citizens and the other two branches of government. In short, we would have the makings of a tyranny.
(Play by the rules; Take turns and share; Be open-minded; listen to others; Don’t take advantage of others; Don’t blame others carelessly)
4. Did President Nixon and his henchmen play by the rules?
(Do your share to make your school and community better; Cooperate; Stay informed; vote; Be a good neighbor; Obey laws and rules; Respect authority; Protect the environment)
5. In trying to expose the Watergate scandal, were Bernstein and Woodward, and the Washington Post acting like good citizens? Shouldn’t good citizens support their country and their government?
The reporter and the Washington Post acted as good citizens. The obligation of citizenship is to the country or community as a whole. Citizenship does not mean working for the benefit of one particular regime.
ASSIGNMENTS, PROJECTS & ACTIVITIES
4. Draft a reporters’ shield law which will tell courts how to deal with each of the situations set out in Discussion Questions 6 to 11. Make a policy argument justifying how your proposed law would resolve each of the scenarios.
Write an essay comparing and contrasting what Deep Throat did in providing information that exposed the Watergate scandal with what happened in the Valerie Plame affair. (See Discussion Question #10).
BRIDGES TO READING
There are many excellent books about Watergate suitable for reading by more mature children. They include: All the President’s Men by Carl Bernstein & Robert Woodward, Final Days, also by Carl Bernstein & Robert Woodward; Blind Ambition by John Dean, The Selling of the President, 1968, by Joe McGinnis; The Imperial Presidency, by Arthur M. Schlesinger and The Making of the President, 1968, by Theodore White.
LINKS TO THE INTERNET
- Wikipedia Article on the Watergate Scandal;
- Watergate duo savors the secret that was, New York Times, June 4, 2005;
- Wikipedia Article on Carl Bernstein;
- Wikipedia Article on Bob Woodward;
- Recalling Nixon’s Resignation, from NPR;
- Rodino on the Mechanics of Impeachment, a voice recording of an interview from NPR;
- Watergate, Gerald Ford, and the Nixon Pardon, from the White House Historical Association;
- The Watergate Days, by Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker Magazine, 6/13/2005;
- Watergate, The Scandal that Brought Down Richard Nixon
- Article on Watergate, from Spartacus Educational