A New Transition in Media and its Influence

    The transition in the style in which new is presented through the media has changed its influence and involvement in politics. Beginning with the dramatic news coverage of the Watergate Scandal, led by the Washing Post, and continuing through the internet citizen-blogging phenomenon that sprung out of the turn of the century, the publishing voice has morphed into an information free-for-all in which the journalist becomes the “gatekeeper” (as mentioned in Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy) for politicians and the young, internet-browser becomes a publisher.


    Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the Washington Post during Watergate, in her Personal History, recounts what became the launch of a new wave for journalistic media. As Graham guides her reader through the edge-of-the-seat story of her two young and ambitious reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, from their pairing and coverage of the break-in trial all the way through President Nixon’s resignation, two qualities of the Post’s news coverage ring with importance: the required confirmation of sources and information and the ultimate influence the press acquired through such a publicized investigation.


    Graham was adamant in that “the role of the Post in all of this [Watergate Scandal] was simply to report the news” (Graham, 571). She knew that any misinformation would discredit both the paper and her reporters. The staff of the Post took a big chance investigating the case so deeply, especially with their growing enemies empowered by government, so it was vital to the paper that their news was accurate. For this reason, Graham instituted the “two-sources” policy where by checking every bit of information with at least a second source before it was printed the reporting team “handle[d] the story with more than the usual scrupulous attention to fairness and detail” (Graham, 565). The stories produced, although contradictory, were reliable, and became what Harry Rosenfeld described as “the longest-running newspaper stories with the least amount of errors that I have ever experienced or will ever experience” (Graham, 566). The accurate approach to reporting brought about a wave of new age, investigative journalism, and it also brought a strengthened voice to the media.


    The growing influence of the press in politics in Graham’s experience with Watergate is represented through both the demand for the paper and the threats from the government. The Post’s continuous articles and investigation of Watergate were confirmed with the discovery of President Nixon’s tapes. As soon as people were convinced of the paper’s credibility, its popular influence sky-rocketed: “After the discovery of the tapes, people actually began waiting the alley outside our building for the first edition of the paper, giving additional meaning to the phrase ‘hot off the presses’” (Graham, 569). The more convincing evidence of the press’s ultimate influence in politics, however, is portrayed through threats from government officials. First, Nixon made threats against the Post itself: “It’s going to have its problems…the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station…and they’re going to have to get it renewed…the game has to be played awfully rough” (Graham, 565). Then, the Attorney General at the time, John Mitchell, was on the phone with reporter Bernstein and physically threatened Katharine Graham, blaming her for the printings on Watergate: “All that crap you’re putting in the paper? It’s all been denied, Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published. Good Christ!” (Graham, 564). The new and increasing influence of the press hanging over the shoulder of politicians that was ignited by the coverage of Watergate is represented in Graham’s increased fear for her paper. She remarks, “I’d lived with White House anger before, but I had never seen anything remotely like the kind of fury and heat I was feeling targeted at us now” (Graham, 567). Graham, in the moment, could feel the building influence of the media on politics. The Post’s integrity in its reporting and in not giving-in to threats shifted the paper away from government sway and towards an influential position.


    This shift in the media’s power to influentially critique politicians created a new and youthful attraction to the field of journalism. Graham hit it on the head when she commented, “the story [of Watergate] had all the ingredients for major drama: suspense, embattled people on both sides, right and wrong, law and order, good and bad” (Graham, 571). The Post’s accomplishments glorified the life of a reporter and, therefore, brought about even a further switch in the journalist’s voice.


    In Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy, Sabato comments negatively on this transition. His argument centers around the irony in the shift from the carefully reported Watergate Scandal which sparked a movement into drama-based reporting with a youthful and unskilled mob-culture that is now associated with journalism, and also, that this style pushes good people away from politics. Sabato argues, “Ever since Watergate, government scandals have paraded across the television set in a roll call so lengthy and numbing that they are inseparable in the public consciousness” (Sabato, 576). His writing insists “gossip has always been the drug of choice for journalists” and, “without convincing proof,” journalists cover politics as “ ‘Entertainment Tonight’ reporters cover Hollywood” (Sabato, 576). His “feeding frenzy” refers to the intimidating media mob of the video age where “a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably,” not unlike piranhas set lose on a piece of meat (Sabato, 577). Sabato blames the press’s conduct on the impact of the Watergate Scandal. He claims, “Watergate shifted the orientation of journalism…toward prescription––helping to set the campaign’s (and society’s) agendas by focusing attention on the candidates’ shortcomings as well as certain social problems” (Sabato, 579). His concern is that because of the glorification of the newsroom and a new interest in investigating candidates’ personal lives, the media-politics relationship is getting out of hand. He fears that because the media has risen “the price of power…dramatically” (Sabato, 581), talented individuals are scared away from politics and only power-hungry leaders remain. Indeed journalists play an important new role in presenting political candidates and social issues to the public. Unelected and sometimes inaccurate, society has given much influence to these individuals.


    Recently, however, the concern has switched to the influence of even less-educated, less-qualified publishing individuals. In Brian Anderson’s article South Park Conservatives, he analyzes the new influence of the Internet on media and its influence on politics through the culture of blogging. Anderson describes blogs as having created a “brand-new media sphere” void of “the gatekeepers’ power to determine (a) what’s important and (b) the range of acceptable opinion” (Anderson, 600). It seems as though such blogs would not find a place in the world of influential media, but because they have become a more radical response to officially published, more left wing news, blogs have become the radical citizens means of discussion and expression. A veteran reporter from the Washington Post remarked, “If Hitler were alive today, he’d have his own blog” (Anderson, 602), for the purpose of commenting on blogs’ place as a tool for extreme radicals, especially right wing. Anderson also suggests the possibility of “virtual cocooning” (Anderson, 603). The possibility is that web browsers only access blogs and websites that agree only with their point-of-view, and, therefore, they become “intellectually lazy” (Anderson, 603) and avoid seeking unbiased reporting. In conclusion, Anderson is in favor of blogs because he believes that blogging has become the most democratic way of reporting.


    The recent progression of media’s impact on politics and society is both positive and negative. It would be hypocritical for me to argue that blogging is always done by unmindful and radical citizens whose agendas are to increase virtual cocooning because I am, in fact, blogging intellectually. However, the ability for slander and gossip to play such a dominating role in politics because of the emphasis given to it by the media is an issue. The recent election has again proven that the media’s endorsement of a political candidate is overwhelmingly influential. The youth has involved itself both in the media and in politics. I welcome and cherish a youthful, rebellious, and critical voice in the media, and it is just a matter of accuracy and credibility that could be addressed. As long as the Internet continues, so will blogs, and it is our job as a country to increase the quality of education so that all citizens understand their chosen point-of-view. We must embrace this new form of expression and use it wisely, to our advantage; however, these articles are a good reminder for us to pick up a newspaper as to not be deceived by the mass of information on our web browsers.

-Rachel Rosenberg