All the Presidents Men

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 232
  • Published : June 1, 2001
Open Document
Text Preview
"All The President's Men"

By: Jackie Mikolajczyk
11-07-00
What is Watergate? Watergate is the biggest political scandal in The United

States history. It included various activities to help President Richard Nixon win re-

election in 1972. Watergate also resulted in Nixon's resignation from presidency in

1974. June 17, 1972 a security guard notified the police that a door lock was taped at the

Washington's Watergate. Three officers responded to the call and found five burglars in

suits with rubber gloves on, hundred dollar bills in sequence in their pockets and with

electronically devices, in Larry O'Briens office. In this paper I will determine if

Woodward and Bernstein stayed within acceptable limits. Three specific areas in which

acceptable limits should be looked at are the 25,000-dollar check to Kenneth H.

Dahlberg, the attempts to get Donald Segretti to go "on the record" and the naming of

Haldeman to the grand jury by Hugh Sloan. I do not think in most of the cases

Woodward and Bernstein were within acceptable limits.

A 25,000-dollar check was deposited in a bank account of Bernard L. Barker.

Barker was one of the five burglars. A Florida bank made out the check to Kenneth H.

Dahlberg. Dahlberg said he turned the check over to Maurice Stans. Dahlberg said he

has no idea how the check got into Barkers bank account. When the Washington Post

examined a photocopy of the check, they found out the "First Bank and Trust Co. of Boca

Raton in Florida made out the check to Dahlberg" (Internet, Lukas). According to court

testimony by government prosecutors, Barker's bank account in which the 25,000 dollar

check was deposited was the same account from which Barker later withdrew a large

number of hundred dollar bills. "About 53 of these 100-dollar bills were found on the

five men after they were arrested at the Watergate" (Internet, Lukas). I think that in this

situation the Washington Post did their job with acceptable limits. I think that if the

information they got was available with out any trouble it was okay but to write a

published story violated privacy. I don't think anyone should be able to look through

someone's accounts or any privacy matter without permission of the person or permission

to print. It is your right to have privacy. The first amendment gives you this right.

Woodward and Breinstein tried to get Segretti to go "on the record." In this

situation, I think they pushed to the limits. You have the right to say no to a reporter.

Segretti didn't want to go on the record but they kept pushing him. They violated his

privacy. They got his travel records and credit card records. I don't think this is

acceptable to go through someone's personal records. It's also a persons right to their

own privacy. There are rules to publishing in this area though. If a person goes on the

record you can use their name or thoughts. If a person goes on background you can use

their thoughts and not their name. If someone goes on deep background you can not use

their name or thoughts. In this situation Woodward and Bernstein are within acceptable

limits.

Finally, Haldeman was the fifth member; to control the funds. Woodward and

Bernstein couldn't get any sources. All they asked was with the report they were going

to print that Sloan just agrees or disagree with what they were going to print. He did "with

out words" and they printed the story. It all blew out in their faces. When the story

reached the public, Washington Post got a call. Sloan agreed with the Post but nothing

was investigated. The Post assumed Sloan appeared in court and testified with names

and was asked questions. Sloan was not, because no one was to investigate beyond

Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy and the burglars. This was because if they did they...
tracking img