Investigative Journalism: The Good and the Bad Historical and Present-day Analysis of Ethical Dilemmas Watergate and Bridgegate
by Carol Kinney
for JRN320 Media Law & Ethics California Baptist University Dr. MaryAnn Pearson
June 26, 2014
Ever since Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden, scandals have been a part of history. America, the so-called land of the beautiful, has had plenty political, financial, entertainment and media scandals. Two of those scandals are Watergate in the 1970’s and Bridge-gate of 2013-2014. Both Watergate and Bridg-gate contain ethical case studies within the political arena, but both also present a unique opportunity to analyze media ethics and how ethical dilemmas have played a role in the investigative journalism of such scandals. A mere mention of the word “Watergate” and most people associate it with scandal. On June 17, 1972, “five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in one of the [Hotel] Watergate offices (Ford Library & Museum, n.d.).” The break-in, breaking story in Washington Post, and subsequent police and federal investigation would eventually result in the impeachment of President Nixon (Washington Post, n.d.). President Nixon would also become the first American president to resign. After that infamous date in history, Watergate became a case study for ethics in politics and journalism. As more details surfaced, the media’s role in the events became evident. According to the Society of Professional Journalism (SPJ) (n.d.), Watergate “is considered perhaps American journalism’s defining accomplishment.” SPJ says within that defining accomplishment contains “two major ethical principles.” Watergate’s media ethical dilemmas stems from the “journalistic credo that granting anonymity to a source is a vow that never should be broken” and the contrasting “duty to reveal information, not conceal it (SPJ).” In 1972, Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein became “two of the most famous journalists in America and became forever identified as the reporters who broke the biggest story in American politics (Harry Ransom Center, n.d.).” Woodword and Berstein went on to earn awards for their achievements in journalism for their Watergate scoop, and to have successful careers in
journalism and media, and they owe it mostly to a man named Mark Felt, formally known as “Deep Throat.” For thirty-three years Woodward and Bernstein protected the source that helped them break the Watergate story that gave the journalistic idol status (Von Drehle, D, 2005). Then in 2005, Mark Felt came forward through his attorney to admit that he was “the guy they used to call Deep Throat (Voh Drehle).” Deep Throat’s identity, once a “mystery,” then became a question of journalistic ethics. Questions about Woodward’s and Bernstein’s decision to protect Felt’s identity were considered (SPJ). After Felt revealed his role in Watergate, it was discovered that he may have been using Woodward and Bernstein to exact revenge upon Nixon for not promoting Felt (CNN, 2005) when Nixon came into office. In a profession where the “first loyalty is to its citizens (Kovach & Rosensteil, 2007)” and which the “first obligation” is to reveal “truth” to the citizens, the ethical dilemma that arises from Woodward’s and Bernstein’s protection of their source is a question of loyalty. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), one of the “core values” of ethics is “loyalty” and is defined by “faithful” representation of affected parties, including “the public’s interest.” If Felt had an ulterior motive for passing information to the journalists, then their protection of him as a source can be a blatant misuse of the protection by Woodward, Bernstein, as well as the editor and publisher of The Washington Post. Additionally, if Woodward and Bernstein knew of Felt’s possible motive, it can also be seen as a conflict of interest in which the journalists withheld the source’s identity for personal gain. Given that Woodward and Bernstein built their successful careers on that one story, it is reasonable to say that there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. It is also feasible
that two reporters, who conducted a long-lasting in-depth investigation into the cover-ups behind Watergate, should have also known enough to investigate Felt’s possible motives for aiding heir investigation. The PRSA says that conflicts of interest can be eliminated altogether by “avoiding actions and circumstances that may” give the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to “disclose promptly any existing or potential conflict of interest.” The SPJ states one of the components to the journalist’s code of ethics is to “identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on source’s reliability.” And also, “always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.” At the very least, Woodward and Bernstein should have revealed their source in the best interest of the public, to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest out of loyalty to the public. Considering the technological tools that journalists now have at their disposal “could we uncover Watergate Today (Downie, L, 2008)?” Leonard Downie, Jr. of The Washington Post believes that technology helps the type of investigative journalism that Woodward and Bernstein practiced in scooping Watergate, but the Internet would change how such a story would play out. “New technology actually makes investigative reporting somewhat easier. We can now use computers and the Internet to search records and other information, and we can use pre-paid cell phones for conversations with confidential sources (Downie).” While it can be argued that investigative reporting and protecting sources still occurs with the use of technology, technology has also added concerns regarding “shield laws (SPJ),” or journalists’ right to protect sources, since the Watergate era.
Not only has the internet created new roles in journalism that have yet to be legally defined, especially in terms of shield laws, the amount of information on the internet and social media makes it hard to keep sources and information from the public. Technology has also made it easy for journalists’ sources, which may be stored on computers, to be revealed by hackers. If Woodward and Bernstein had used computers, tablets and smart-phones during their investigation, there is a chance that the story may have been leaked before the journalists ever had the chance to write one word of the story. Additionally, Felt’s identity most likely would not have been kept a secret for so long if the journalists had used technology in 1972. Bridgegate supports this theory about technological impact on investigative reporting. Bridgegate is the “scandal over lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that gridlocked a small town (Durandon, J., 2014)” in New Jersey and has become a public relations nightmare for Governor Chris Christie. Where Watergate pushed Nixon out of office, some say Bridgegate may prevent Christie from realizing his hopes for the presidency in 2016 (Goldberg, B. & Honan, E., 2014). Where Woodward and Bernstein were given sole credit for their breaking story on Watergate, technology has caused a maelstrom of journalists vying for credit for breaking the Bridgegate scandal. And where the lack of technology during Woodward’s and Bernstein’s investigation into Watergate presented several ethical considerations, technology use in Bridgegate presents a whole other set of ethical dilemmas. Joe Pompeo of Capital New York reports that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Record, and The Star-Ledger are all claiming stakes in the break (2014). The PRSA’s code of ethics states that “healthy and fair competition among professionals preserves an ethical climate” and that one of the guidelines is to “preserve intellectual property rights in the marketplace. Bridgegate has revealed that journalists are not promoting “healthy and fair
competition” if one journalist claims recognition that is due another, or when a number of journalists are fighting over the same recognition. Technology can be seen as the source of this unethical practice of competition in the case of Bridgegate. Because of the rapid release of emails by the New Jersey State legislature to the press regarding the investigation into the matter, several news outlets reported the story online within minutes of each other (Pompeo). Once the story was broke online, bloggers were able to pick up the story at rapid speed, and from there everyone could claim to have been a part of breaking Bridgegate. Moreover, Michael Drewniak, Governor Christie’s current press secretary, has recently accused at least one member of the press from using technology in an unethical way (Walker, H., 2014). Drewniak stated that he saw that political reporter for the Associated Press Angela Delli Santi had “posted a picture on Facebook showing and appearance that she made (Walker)” on a cable news show. The picture portrayed Santi, who’s beat is New Jersey politics, discussing “testimony” of one of Christie’s top aids during the New Jersey Legislature’s committee meeting on Bridgegate. The issue that bothers Drewniak, is not that Santi posted the story on Facebook, but rather that a reporter who is supposed to cover the Governor “impartially,” would only appear on the one news network (MSNBC), and not others. In other words, the ethical dilemma that arises from Santi’s appearance is whether or not Santi is showing her personal bias in favor of one political party over another by only appearing on the station that is known for showing bias (Bercovici, J., 2013). In his concern, Drewniak posted a comment on Santi’s Facebook page regarding his concerns, in which Santi entered into a discussion with Drewniak (Walker). Looking at Santi’s Facebook page, which is public, the said post and exchange has been removed and Santi is leaving her
employment with the Associated Press for a position a “communications director with NJ AFLCIO on July 14 (Santi, A.D., 2014). The ethical dilemmas of Santi’s coverage of Governor Christie is whether or not she “re-enacted or staged a story (SPJ),” showed bias in her appearance and post (SPJ), and “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived (SPJ, c.f. PRSA).” Additionally, the journalist’s code of ethics states that a journalist should “admit mistakes and correct them promptly,” yet when Hunter Walker called Drewniak and Santi “about their Facebook exchange,” neither replied, and Santi’s deletion of the post on Facebook could be seen as an effort to conceal, rather than admit, the mistake. Business Insider took the opportunity to reveal any conflicts of interest Walker may have with this story, stating “Full Disclosure: Business Insider Politics Editor Hunter Walker has made multiple appearances on MSNBC to discuss Christie and Bridgegate.” Scandals are made for journalism. “Give voice to the voiceless,” “recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection,” and “be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable (SPJ).” These are values stated in the journalist’s code of ethics and prove how one of the roles of journalists is to address scandals such as Watergate and Bridgegate. However, with that responsibility to the public, ethical dilemmas are sure to surface. In the case of Watergate, the problems that resulted from a lack of ethical concern were about concealment. Lack of technology made that possible. With Bridgegate and the use of technology a whole new set of ethical dilemmas emerge. Watergate and Bridgegate are both investigative journalism at its best and worse. Watergate and Bridgegate shed light on governmental practices that involved the public’s right to know (c.f. Patterson, P. & Wilkins, L.,2008) and are good. But once the dust settled on
both “gates,” it can be seen that journalists did not always make the best ethical decisions. In the end, perhaps Woodward, Bernstein, all of the journalists who are covering Bridgegate, and all journalists should ask what southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd sang “Now Watergate [or Bridgegate] does not bother me, does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth (King, E., et al., 1974).
Cited Sources Akin, S. (2014). Breaking news: thousands of documents released in Christie GWB scandal. The Record. Retrieved from http://www.northjersey.com/news/breaking-news-thousands-ofdocuments-released-in-christie-gwb-scandal-1.650827. Bercovici, J. (2013). Pew Study Finds MSNBC the most opinionated cable news channel by far. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-studyfinds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/. CNN. (2005). Who is Mark Felt? Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/31/felt.profile/. Downie, L., Jr. (2008). Could we uncover Watergate Today? The Washington Post. Retrieved From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902928.html. Durnando, J. (2014). The backstory of Christie’s ‘Bridgegate’ scandal. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/09/christie-bridge-scandal-whathappened/4392155/. Ford, G. Library and Museum. (n.d.). The Watergate Files. Retrieved from http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/intro.php.
Goldberg, B. & Honan, E. (2014). Springsteen, Fallon lampoon N.J. Governor Christie’s ‘Bridgegate.” Reuters. Retrieved from http://trove.com/me/content/6g14s?chid=64757. Harry Ransom Center (n.d.). The Woodward and Berstein Watergate Papers. University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/. King, E., et al. (1974). Sweet Home Alabama. Recorded by Lynard Skynard. On Second Helping. New York: MCA Records. Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The Elements of Journalism. New York: Three Rivers Press. Patterson, P. & Wilkins, L. (2008). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases. New York: McGrawHill. Pompeo, J. (2014). Blurred lanes: The Journal really owned the Christie story. Capital New York. Retrieved from http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/ 2014/01/8538673/blurred-lanes-emjournalem-really-owned-christie-story. Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). (n.d.). PRSA Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/aboutprsa/ethics/codeenglish/#.U62shfldWSo. Santi, A.D. (2014). Facebook posts. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/angela.d.santi?fref=ts. Society of Professional Journalism (n.d.). Ethics Case Studies: Deep Throat, and His Motive. Website. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ecs18.asp. SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. Von Drehle, D. (2005). FBI’s No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat’: Mark Felt Ends 30-Year Mystery of The Post’s Watergate Source. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ pb/politics/fbis-no-2-was-deep-throat-mark-felt-ends-30-year-mystery-of-the-posts-
watergate-source/2012/06/04/gJQAwseRIV_story.html. Walker, H. (2014). Chris Christie’s top spokesman would like to know why reporters talk About his boss on MSNBC. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-christie-spokesman-why-reporters-talk-about-his-bosson-msnbc-2014-6. Washington Post (n.d.). The Watergate Story: Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/timeline.html.