The heroic-journalist myth of Watergate — the notion that dogged reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for the Washington Post brought down Richard Nixon’s corrupt presidency — pops up often, and in the service of any number of objectives.
Nixon got Nixon
It is a tale of supposed high accomplishment inspiring to journalists, especially so at a time of sustained retrenchment in their field.
It’s a trope with the intoxicating effect of placing journalists at the decisive center of an exceptional moment in U.S. history.
And it’s a way of paying obsequious tribute to the Washington Post, much as Sky News in Britain did not long ago.
“The Washington Post is one of the world’s great newspapers,” a fawning essay at the Sky’s online site declared, adding:
“Thanks to its investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, it can make the unique claim of having brought down an American president — the corrupt Richard Nixon.”
It’s not too difficult to understand why such an extravagant claim circulates so widely.
After all, it is tidy, handy if terribly misleading shorthand about the sprawling Watergate scandal of 1972-74: It sweeps away complexities of Watergate, rendering the scandal and its thicket of lies and criminality rather easy to grasp. After all, as I noted in the recently published, expanded second edition of my mythbusting book, Getting It Wrong, the Watergate scandal “has grown so distant that few Americans can accurately describe what took place.”
The heroic-journalist myth has become a reductive substitute.
The heroic-journalist interpretation also is a way of saluting Woodward and Bernstein, both of whom are in their 70s. Both, in fact, will highlight this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, where they are to hand out awards and offer remarks about the importance of investigative reporting. (Not surprisingly, their pending joint appearance has stirred fresh retelling of the heroic-journalist myth. The Washington Examiner said the other day, for instance, that Woodward and Bernstein’s “coverage of the Watergate break-in led eventually to former President Richard Nixon’s resignation.”)
In their younger days, Woodward and Bernstein sneered at the correspondents’ association dinner, describing it in All the President’s Men, their 1974 book about Watergate, as “a formal, overdone, alcohol-saturated event, attended by all those with power — or pretensions to power — in the media and government.” Woodward and Bernstein went anyway, in 1973, to collect a couple of prizes.
So over-the-top is the heroic-journalist interpretation of Watergate that not even principals at the Post when the scandal played out — notably the publisher, Katharine Graham, and her top editor, Ben Bradlee — embraced the notion.
“Sometimes people accuse us of bringing down a president, which of course we didn’t do,” Graham said in 1997. “The processes that caused [Nixon’s] resignation were constitutional.”
Also that year, Bradlee said on the Sunday talk show “Meet the Press” that “it must be remembered that Nixon got Nixon. The Post didn’t get Nixon.”
He was referring to the White House audio tapes which Nixon secretly made and which revealed the president’s guilty role in attempting to divert the FBI investigation into the botched burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington in June 1972. The breakin touched off the scandal.
And in earthier terms, Woodward concurred, telling an interviewer in 2006:
“To say that the press brought down Nixon, that’s horseshit.”
Quite.
More from Media Myth Alert:
- NYTimes invokes Watergate myth in writeup about journalists and movies
- NYTimes mag and the heroic-journalist myth of Watergate
- A trope that knows few bounds: The hero-journalist interpretation of Watergate
- Watergate made boring
- The Watergate myth that offers something for everyone
- Misreporting Watergate
- Didn’t: A Watergate primer
- ‘Deep Throat’ garage marker errs about Watergate source disclosure
- Mythmaking in Moscow: Biden says WaPo brought down Nixon
- Inspirations to journalists: Woodward, Bernstein — and Gaga?
- WaPo ‘broke the Watergate scandal’? No way
- WaPo ‘played pivotal role’ in Watergate? Think again
- Mythmaking in Moscow: Biden says WaPo brought down Nixon
- Every good historian a mythbuster
- ‘Getting It Wrong’ wins SPJ award for Research about Journalism
Media Myth Alert 
[…] ruminated the other day about the many applications of the heroic-journalist trope of Watergate, the ever-engaging myth […]
[…] it: The murky Trump-Russia suspicions are still far, far from the constitutional crisis that was Watergate, the scandal that took down Richard Nixon’s corrupt presidency and sent some 20 of his […]
[…] a hardy, media-centric trope that pops up frequently in news outlets both prominent and relatively […]
[…] referring to Woodward and Bernstein as “two Davids” was an early expression of the heroic-journalist interpretation that has long since became the dominant narrative of […]
[…] I call it the heroic-journalist myth of Watergate. […]
[…] doesn’t take much for journalists to conjure the heroic-journalist myth of Watergate. The trope has such narrative power that it’s easy to invoke, if usually too good to […]
[…] myth of Watergate (posted November 27): It doesn’t take much for journalists to conjure the heroic-journalist myth of Watergate. It’s a trope that’s readily invoked but often too good to check […]
[…] yet, the hero-journalist myth lives on — as suggested the other day in a column by the entertainment critic for the Lincoln […]
[…] The heroic-journalist myth of Watergate and its applications […]
[…] few months back, for example, the Guardian of London invoked the heroic-journalist myth of Watergate, declaring that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein “brought down” Richard […]
[…] The mythical notion that dogged journalism brought down Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal is unshakeable in its appeal and irresistible in its application. […]
[…] myth that Washington Post reporters brought down Richard Nixon’s presidency. What I call the heroic journalists interpretation of the Watergate scandal took hold before it was ever prominently challenged. The […]
[…] I call the heroic-journalist interpretation of Watergate and it lives on as a mythical and irresistible fillip to journalists seeking inspiration amid the […]
[…] not difficult to locate. But they’re often disregarded in favor of a reflexive embrace of the heroic-journalist trope, which long ago became the dominant narrative of […]
[…] Smith’s reporting on Watergate has been largely forgotten — eclipsed by what I call the heroic-journalist myth in which Woodward and Bernstein are central […]
[…] wouldn’t be a major Watergate anniversary without prominent references to the heroic-journalist myth — that risible, media-centric view that the Washington Post’s reporting exposed the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] interpretation of Watergate. If something, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” fantasy of Watergate, which I tackle and dismantle in my e-book “Getting It Fallacious: […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, 25 years of intervention has strengthened “heroic-journalist“The Watergate myth, which I address and unpack in my book”The Wrong Way: Unraveling the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] of Watergate. If almost something, the intervening 25 a few years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” fantasy of Watergate, which I deal with and dismantle in my guide “Receiving It Incorrect: […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I dismantled in my media-mythbusting book Getting It Wrong: Debunking […]
[…] common interpretation of Watergate. If something, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” delusion of Watergate, which I tackle and dismantle in my e book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book “Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]
[…] popular interpretation of Watergate. If anything, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” myth of Watergate, which I address and dismantle in my book Getting It Wrong: Debunking the […]