Watergate

toc Look at the following links regarding Watergate (2 of them require sound) [|Watergate Wikipedia] [|President Nixon 'I Am Not a Crook' audio] [|Nixon Resigns (11 seconds)]
 * [|List of scandals with '-gate' as a suffix] (This last one is more for fun - look at how many other scandals have now adopted the suffix "gate" because of Watergate!)**

I'm going to be asking you to answer a series of questions which you will be expected to write out. To help you distinguish which questions I want written responses to, I'm highlighting those questions in green. If the question is not in green, you do not need to write out an answer, but it is something that I think is important to think about.

As you are going through this, there are two terms that you should be familiar with. The first is "**whistleblower**." What is meant by this term? How does it relate to Watergate? The second term is the "**Fourth Estate**." The Constitution provides for the US government to have three "estates" (or branches)--legislative, executive, and judicial--and all were designed to "check" the power of one another. However, what would happen if all three of these branches failed to balance the power of each other? That's where the "fourth estate" comes in - which is the press. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of the press (although this has been limited in certain situations). What are some ways that the press, or journalists, can "check" the power of all 3 branches of the US Government?

The Watergate scandal raises many important issues that we'll be looking at today in class. The first set of issues deal with the political implications of Watergate and the second deal with issues surrounding freedom of the press and an independent media. Let's start by looking at the political implications...

Political Issue #1: Executive Privilege
Politically speaking, the issue of "executive privilege" comes up frequently during the Watergate Scandal. This is a privilege that the US Constitution guarantees in Article II. What is meant by "executive privilege"? Why do you think the founding fathers felt that this was an important right for the president to have? How did President Nixon exercise his right to "executive privilege" during the Watergate Scandal? Do you believe that President Nixon abused this power (in light of what the founding fathers intended it be used for)? Why or why not? In light of this scandal, do you believe this is a right that the president should continue to have? Why or why not?

For this last question, I want you to find a partner and write a short script detailing the pros and cons of the president having executive privilege in the format of a pro-con debate. I then want you to record your debate as a podcast and upload it here. Your podcast should be about 2 minutes in length.

Political Issue #2: The Right to Pardon
The second political question that arises from this scandal involves the right of a president to issue a pardon. In this case, President Ford issued Richard Nixon a full pardon about a month after Nixon's resignation. President Ford argued that this was necessary as the nation needed to put this ugly episode to rest and move on. Many people disagreed with President Ford's decision and in many ways, this was the 'beginning of the end' of Gerald Ford's presidency. Do you believe President Ford made the right decision in granting Richard Nixon a pardon? Why or why not?

Now that we've discussed the political implications of Watergate, it's time to look at the issues involving the press. As you may or may not know, the Watergate Scandal, while hurting America's faith in its government, bolstered support for the press. (In fact, Mr. Wood truly considered a career in the press before he discovered his love of teaching and working with students :) At the same time, it raised issues regarding journalism ethics and the freedom of the press as well as the relationship of the press to the US government. (A 3rd, related issue has come about more recently.)

Press Issue #1: Unnamed Sources
The first issue involves the practice of using **//unnamed sources//** in articles. Many journalists will cite an "unnamed source" in an article to protect the source's identity because if that source was found out to be telling information that he or she should not be sharing, the source could possibly lose his or her job or even worse, face physical harm. The sources want the truth to be told, however, they fear punishment or harm if they were found out to be the source of the information. Several states have passed [|shield laws] which protect journalists from having to share their sources, even if subpoenaed. On the other hand, it's possible that journalists could be "making up" information or that their unnamed sources could lack credibility and what they are writing is slanderous.

This brings up an interesting paradox: a journalist could write a story about a prominent figure in society using an unnamed source; that figure sues on the basis that the article is false and thus, is slander. When the trial comes up, the journalist, if in a state that has shield laws, does not have to cite his or her source that is the source of the alleged slander and thus, does not have to testify. Is this right or ethical? At the same time, had Woodward and Bernstein not been permitted to use unnamed sources, the Watergate Scandal would have never reached the newspapers and thus, the American public would have never known what happened. Journal entry: Should journalists be allowed to use unnamed sources? Why or why not? Should those sources be forced to testify in a slander trial?

Press Issue #2: The Relationship Between the Press and the Government
The second issue deals with how the relationship between the press and the government has changed over time. Read the following article: [|History of Journalism in America], and take note of how this relationship has changed. Is this change beneficial to the American public? Why or why not?

Press Issue #3: The 'Death' of the Newspaper
The third issue deals with the decline of the newspaper over the last fifteen years. Newspapers have typically made their money from 3 sources (1st 2 will be mentioned in class):
 * 1) [|classified ads.]
 * 1) [|classified ads.]
 * 1) [|classified ads.]


 * With the money inflow from these 3 sources of revenue, newspapers could traditionally employ more investigative journalists (much like Woodward and Bernstein).
 * How has the Internet in general and sites like Craigslist specifically led to the decline of the 3 traditional major sources of income for newspapers?

This quote is from the article titled [|'Death of Newspapers']. Read it to help you think more fully about the impact of newspaper's decline. What does this mean for society? What can be done to prevent it? Should something be done to prevent it? An interesting take on this issue is done by Stephen Colbert in the following video: [|Stephen Colbert Interviews Newspaper Lobbyist on "Death of the Newspapers"] Enjoy this one!
 * "...The real problem isn't the impending death of newspapers, but the impending death of //news// -- at least news as we know it."**

Finally, journalism is heading down the path of people reporting their own experiences through blogs and other online media sources. In fact, some media moguls are encouraging people to do this, such as CNN through their [|iReport] program. While this will definitely increase the number of viewpoints that are shared, these viewpoints are often slanted one way or another. Furthermore, with so much information out there, will this start to cause information-overload on the part of viewers and lead to apathy? (In other words, could the availability of "more information" actually lead to people becoming "less informed'?) I don't have the answer to this question, but it's something interesting to think about...

Time permitting: iReport Activity

Interesting article: Book on Samsung Divides Korea