Journalists and the media as a whole have independently assumed the role as “gate-keepers” (according to Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy). Yet strangely enough, for the most part, Americans have let the media outlets of the world attain this position of power. The influence of the media has evolved greatly over the years, but consequently with this evolution costs are almost as readily apparent as the benefits. Media, although it tries to remain unbiased, generally creates a fissure between the American people. As the proverb goes, “There are always two sides to a story,” and in many peoples’ opinions, one news source cannot effectively report both sides. Furthermore when this issue is compounded by the new waves of journalist who Sander Vanocur, a veteran ABC colleague, says express “the quality of the avenging angel” (Sabato, 575) and are too dominated by their own personal agendas, the democratic nature of the American people begins to scream. The opinions and the editorial pieces of the Joe Six-packs of the world need to be heard to…don’t they? Some people think that they do and therefore bloggomania has ensued. Whether or not you want to tune into what some (such as Boston Globe’s Alex Beam) refer to as “Blogistan, the Internet-based journalistic medium where no thought goes unpublished, no long-out-of-print book goes unhawked, and no fellow ‘blogger,’ no matter how outré, goes un-praised,” (Anderson, 602) (I just love the irony of bashing blogging while I’m writing a blog myself) or what others feel is the only medium of responsible journalism, blogs are quickly becoming the preferred mode of media in the United States. But even blogs have their own fair share of adverse effects. What I’m trying to get at is that media is an entirely flawed entity floating amidst the people of America. It has its occasional moments of brilliance and usefulness such as during the Watergate Scandal, yet additional successes of the media since that historic event have been few and far between, causing more turmoil than benefit. A trend seems to have been developed over the past thirty years, a trend which will be very interesting to research and see if it repeats itself. This cycle of which I speak is thus: an unbelievable triumph of media occurs (i.e. Watergate), attempted emulation of such a success fails miserably, failures continue to manifest themselves, then the common people need to resort to alternate forums for their unbiased information, the effect of entirely unbiased and unchallenged information isolates select Americans, finally resulting in a re-emergence of quality national media and the cycle that follows.

Katherine Graham was the owner of the iconic Washington Post newspaper. Her continued fame has been the result of her paper’s unwavering pursuit in uncovering what Graham believed to be “an unprecedented effort to subvert the political process. (Something she describes as) a pervasive, indiscriminate use of power and authority from an administration with a passion for secrecy and deception and an astounding lack of regard for the normal constraints of democratic politics.” (Graham, 571) This “something” was the Watergate scandal, and (pardon my French) but that is one hell of an accusation. It was this brooding intensity that propelled the staff of the Post, specifically the two young, budding journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to pursue the story with an unprecedented passion. Yet, as Graham describes, even with the paper upholding strict guidelines such as, “every bit of information attributed to an unnamed source had to be supported by at least one other, independent source,” (Graham, 565) people including a pretty important one, the President and his entire staff, still were pissed off. Attorney General John Mitchell was even quoted saying, “JEEEEEESUS…All that crap, you’re putting it in the paper?” (Graham, 564). The staff of the Washington Post persisted through various threats and subpoenas and with firm emphasis on accuracy; they published a series stories, clearly incriminating multiple White House representatives, which were so widely read that “people actually began waiting in the alley outside (the) building for the first edition of the paper,” (Graham, 569). This was the pinnacle of investigatory journalism. Woodward and Bernstein provided the foundation for a new breed of journalists: young and ruthless reporters who would go to far-reaching limits to turn a story. The interesting problem though is this: most situations since Watergate haven’t called for such qualities of in-your-face journalism. You see, the issue was (as Graham said) “the role of luck was essential in Watergate,” (Graham, 573). I find it difficult to ever declare the word “essential” an understatement, but this is one scenario in which I can make such an assertion. Luck was utterly vital and incomprehensibly available to The Washington Post in regards to Watergate. It was if God himself handcrafted the Watergate Scandal, placed it upon a golden platter and served it to The Washington Post for dinner (with a side of potatoes-why…I don’t know). I’m not trying to downplay the great amount of effort Bernstein and Woodward went through to turn the story but seriously they were unbelievably lucky. Literally a million different scenarios went the right way for the newspaper staff, beginning with the guard discovering the taped door at the Watergate building, the police sending an undercover cop car that was miraculously in the area, and listless more occurrences. Watergate was a rare glimpse of seamless media coverage by one agency, yet those who tried to emulate reporters such as Bernstein and Woodward failed to recognize the amazing amount of luck required for the “perfect story”, so this new breed of reporters attempted to turn out the same stories but they lacked all the content and accuracy of the Watergate stories, resulting in a phase Larry Sabato has termed the “Feeding Frenzy.”

Sabato has compared this new wave of journalists looking to land a Hollywood documentary (such as Bernstein and Woodward) to frenzied fools. Frenzy describes “some kind of disorderly, compulsive, or agitated activity that is muscular and instinctive, not cerebral and thoughtful,” (Sabato, 576) and, when applied to journalists, it critiques the fact that the press “has become obsessed with gossip rather than governance” (Sabato, 576). Basically, journalists enter a violent and aggressive mode in order to track down the most interesting and controversial, yet generally irrelevant stories. This mentality of “If it bleeds try to kill it” (Sabato, 577), in our “brave new world of omnipresent journalism” (Sabato, 577) has debased our journalists into to sharks who become so overwhelmed by the “kill” that the lose sight of all their inhibitions. The result of such maverick reporting exhibits a sad truth. Some of the people most qualified for leadership positions in the government simply do not run because of the prospect of getting torn apart by the media for any previous miss-steps. Furthermore, since the media has adopted the position of “gate-keeper”, the American public becomes restricted by these unfounded stories to the point that they don’t even realize the news they are listening to is completely irrelevant. In efforts to reverse this trend, we have become oh so fond of the blog.

Blogs provide the medium appropriate for all kinds of thoughts in any way, shape, or form. It is the mystery meat of the lunchroom—anything and everything is mashed together all in one place, the internet. The issues and opinions not so evident in the national media are readily abundant in many of the millions of blogs that exist today. But some people such as legal theorist Cass Sunstein believe the political blog-sites could lead to a “cyber-balkanization” (Anderson, 603). This means that since people can customize their own communications, they might only read the news that they care about. Conversely, some argue that this idea of “virtual cocooning” is irrelevant because the primary purpose of blogs is criticizing the opposing thoughts of others. This argument isn’t completely sound, though, because although people might see opposing viewpoints on some issues, they may avoid entire other issues that aren’t appealing, making the bloggers uninformed.

Media is a flawed necessity. We need it, but it can never fully fit our needs. Something will always be left out, some opinions will always overpower others, and the personal customization of news will always leave us ignorant. The Watergate scandal set a precedent for investigatory journalism when a precedent shouldn’t have been set. Instead the work of The Washington Post should have just been admired for what it was: a lot of skill, but even more luck. We can’t control luck; therefore we cannot control good stories, so all we are left with only the continuing cycle of unjust media reports and unsatisfied needs.