Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week. You do not need to post to all areas. – Dr. McClurken

DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS – Please be careful as you add your posts that you are not deleting anyone else's work. – Dr. McClurken

====== How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history? ======

The main aspect that the movie was able to accurately portray comes from the Washington Post's reporting of the Watergate scandal. This comes in the form of receiving information from anonymous sources, document reviews, and phone calls that were able to portray the work behind investigative journalism by these reporters. Mark Felt was also a pivotal piece in being able to unravel Woodward and Bernstein's confirmations during this conspiracy. Another key component is the obstacles these reporters faced in terms of intimidation and threats that they faced by running the risk of taking a story against powerful political figures. Overall, the movie was able to get the key factors right in terms of the break into the Watergate Complex to step up the story, the secrecy and difficulties from a journalism perspective, and the serious and tense tone revolving around the subject at hand and how this case could influence politics for the foreseeable future. -Alex

This movie, in my opinion, doesn't stray too much from the overall accuracy of the event. Key people like Woodward and Bernstein as well as "Deep Throat" were obviously real, and it seems like most of the TV clips that were used were authentic. I'm not entirely sure, but the headlines at the end of the movie seemed accurate as well. Though I had trouble following along with the timeline, I still felt like it was accurate. The movie did a good job of keeping the facts, facts, and ensuring that the pieces Woodstein were uncovering were accurate to their actual timeline. Overall, I felt that the movie didn't fabricate in places unnecessarily, the only place I can think of would be the talks between Woodward and Deep Throat, as there wouldn't have really been a way for those conversations to be recorded. - Caty

I think overall this movie did a good job of getting the major facts right. They may have exaggerated certain parts, but you could tell the detail they went through to keep it accurate. Lots of the background seemed accurate, where I heard they bought trash from the actual news room where they uncovered the investigation, which goes to show the lengths they went through to try and get the movie right. Having the reporters help finish the script too shows that, where they wanted to get the correct retelling of events that occurred. -Matt S.

All the President’s Men does a great job capturing the story behind the Watergate scandal. It shows how Woodward and Bernstein worked tirelessly to piece everything together by chasing leads, double-checking facts, and by relying on sources like Deep Throat. The film closely follows the actual timeline of events, showing how the conspiracy gradually unraveled. It also perfectly captures the mood of the 1970s, with its tension and widespread distrust of the Nixon administration. The portrayals of key players like Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham feel authentic and highlight the courage it took Woodward and Bernstein to publish their findings. Overall, this film offers a compelling and realistic look at investigative journalism at its best. -Sam B.

====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

As far as I could understand, and based on the small amount of outside research I did, I think one of the only parts that is historically inaccurate is the combining of some characters (I can't remember which ones), and the conversations between Woodward and Deep Throat. I'm not sure if those conversations were ever recorded, but that provides a lot of creative liberties with the filmmakers. Additionally, I'm not sure how accurate the conversations were on the phone calls, simply because I don't know how much of those were transcribed and recorded. Overall, I don't feel that there were too many inaccuracies that the average viewer would notice. It would take some more committed research to pick through the inaccuracies. - Caty

Truthfully, this movie is extremely accurate and the issues in accuracy I noted were extremely inconsequential. For example, the lawyer that Woodward talked to during the trial of the burglars (in an early scene) did identify himself, instead of saying he was “Markham.” Another small issue to note is when Woodward is going to meet with Deep Throat for the first time. When Woodward changes cabs in front of the Kennedy Center, it’s presumably around 2 in the morning, yet there are crowds of people exiting the building. The only instance of historical inaccuracy that I could find that was pure fiction was the scene where Bernstein is able to speak with the Miami DA by tricking his secretary. This scene did not happen in real life. – Allie

While All the President’s Men is mostly accurate, it takes some creative liberties. The film simplifies timelines and makes the investigation seem faster and more linear than it actually was. It also focuses heavily on Woodward and Bernstein, sidelining contributions from other journalists that played a role in uncovering Watergate. Some scenes, like the one where they misreport a grand jury source, are fictionalized for tension. Additionally, the depiction of Deep Throat exaggerates his involvement, and the Washington Post’s role is made to seem more singular than it truly was. These choices make the story more engaging but ultimately detract from the film’s overall accuracy. - Sam B.
====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======

What makes All the President's Men so interesting is the fact that it was made a mere two years after the Watergate Scandal had forced Richard Nixon's resignation. For this reason, it provides excellent insight into how some Americans were feeling in the aftermath of the Scandal itself. Most folks who Bernstein and Woodward speak to are in opposition to what the Executive Branch did at Watergate, though they are also interested in saving their own skins. A few of the Republicans who the pair talk to, whilst explaining that they find the Watergate Scandal to be unconstitutional, are also hesitant to give up information, for fear that it will hurt their party's chance in the upcoming election. Given that only two years had passed, it is not unreasonable to assert that this was a feeling still shared by some average, everyday Republicans, which is perhaps why Gerald R. Ford pardoned Nixon shortly after entering office. - John M.

This movie, having been made only years after the Watergate scandal took place, contains a multitude of prevailing sentiments regarding the scandal and its impact. The fact that the movie was made in the first place (and was commercially successful) indicates that Watergate captured the hearts and minds of the American public. The movie also reflects the idea that the American public didn’t trust the government as much as it had previously, something that Watergate was the final nail in the coffin for. - Ewan H.

It works as a primary source because it shows the politics and journalism culture during the 1970s. During the 70s, investigative journalism was becoming more popular which you can see in the movie by the reporters covering the Watergate Scandal. In terms of politics, the film depicts the public mistrusting the government after the Watergate scandal. Additionally, this movie was produced around (the end) the Vietnam War, when people already mistrusted the government so that is something to think about as well. (Hannah E.)

As a film made in the time soon after the events took place, we get a real authentic look at the mid 1970’s in America. We get the perspective of Washington Post reporters pertaining to the political movements of the time. We see how Nixon’s reelection campaign and Mcggovern’s run against him are viewed by common people. The film can also serve as a rough sort of relic of the 1970’s typewriter-based reporting culture. We directly see the inner workings of a reporting organization as it would have existed back then. We also see how the press interacts with the government. - Owen

This film is interesting, as it was created so soon after the events of Watergate took place. The only other film we have seen that was created contemporary to the events it is depicting is Best Years of Our Lives. The tone of this film is different from Best Years of Our Lives however. It feels like this film intends to create a historically relevant film that will be viewed into the future by the general public as both a primary and secondary source about these events. It seems its strengths come from its application as a primary source about America’s perspectives on Watergate at the time, however. - Rickie

When analyzing this film as a primary source, it’s unique from the numerous other movies we’ve discussed this semester, as it came out only a few years after the Watergate scandal occurred. Simply put, when this movie was in production, Watergate, and the consequential issues arsing from it, were still very fresh and revelant for the American public. The greatest issue I had with the film was finding it difficult to keep track of how complicated the web of people involved in the Post’s investigation, but to a 1970s audience (who, again, just lived through the scandal), they would have a much greater knowledge of the case. --Allie

this movie shows how people felt about the government and journalism in the 1970s. The movie came out shortly after the Watergate scandal, when trust in the government was low, and it highlights how important investigative journalism was in holding leaders accountable for thier actions. It also shows the hard work reporters did to uncover the truth, which reflects how the public wanted honesty and transparency from those in the government.The film captures the mood of the time which was to question the government. - Jedidia

The movie does a solid job with historical accuracy, likely a consequence of being released so soon after the historical event it was fictionalizing. With the story having just unfolded in the papers a few years prior, any of the liberties that are easy for filmmakers to take decades or centuries down the line just wouldn't fly with such an audience. It also portrays the world that the scandal happened in as it was - D.C. in the seventies, in and around the locations that these events actually happened. As such, it is likely one of the most accurately representative historical fiction there is. - Claire C.

====== The "So What" Question ======

The reason why we should care about this film is that it highlights the importance in having investigative journalism uncover corruption in politics and to hold individuals accountable for their words and actions. Accountability is something that we all need to have regardless of opinion to show that no person is above the law including the President. This film also displays the issues in modern society regarding the political realm whether it be from misinformation, attacking the press, and having polarized views that influence others way of thinking to distrust members of the media. These factors mostly come from higher placed political officials and how they can influence the thinking of the mass population. This film's historical accuracy speaks to the broader point about how we as individuals need to fight for the rights and truth of our democratic principles in order to be a united nation. -Alex

All the President's Men remains a particularly poignant film nearly 50 years after its original release. With the influx of accusations being thrown around regarding 'Fake News', this movie offers an in-depth observation of the journalistic process, and how the deflections and denials that are often put forth when journalists report on unsavory actions undertaken by politicians are nothing new. Also demonstrated by the movie are the lengths some politicians will go in an attempt to have press that is unfavorable to them shut down at the expense of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this, too, continues to be an issue well into the 21st century. By taking example from the efforts of Woodward and Bernstein, and keeping in mind that a free press makes for a free and fair democracy, we can continue to strive towards holding those we elect accountable. - John M.

I think that this movie is important to analyze as a contrast to popularized American history that often portrays the country as noble or generally in a positive light. In the most recent slew of movies we’ve analyzed, this theme has been flipped on its head, and I think that this movie demonstrates the more realistic and darker recesses of American government that often eludes the silver screen. This movie serves as a reminder to keep governmental power in check, a message that is timeless and always surfacing time and time again. - Ewan H

This film is important as it gives us a solid look into the Watergate scandal for conservation purposes now and it was important then as it served the American community at large as a way to form a solid narrative around one of the most controversial issues in American political history. The fact that this movie existed also allowed many Americans to reference the Watergate scandal in a way that promotes American journalistic integrity. By highlighting the efforts of Woodward and Bernstein to uncover the truth of the situation through wit and willpower, we are left with a story of journalistic victory. - Owen

This film is significant because of its closeness in time to the events it is depicting. This lends it, if not credibility on the content of the film, certainly credibility on the attitudes and outlook of the general population of America at that time. The scandal and shock of the situation can be clearly felt throughout the film, as well as a sense of American heroism and adventure. - Rickie

All the President’s Men goes to show the importance of investigative journalism. It’s proof that it can help stop systemic corruption even at the highest level. This film also does a great job of getting into the depths of details that helped uncover the truth. Although there were lots of small things, when you show an audience the slow collecting of the pieces, it starts to reveal how deep and complex the corruption truly was. Many people, including myself) really only knew about the Watergate scandal. After watching this movie, it showed me that it went so much deeper than that, that this had been going on for a long time. Overall, it shows that without the real truth, corruption can continue to manipulate the public from under their noses, especially by those high up in power. -Matt S.

All the President's Men is an excellent example of what can be achieved by just telling an interesting historical story, rather than doctoring it up for theatre audiences. The only aspects of it that were fictionalized were those that had to be because they were not on record. Of course, not every event that becomes the basis for a movie can have the benefit of being made right after the events they were based on, but even so, All the President's Men feels like an earnest retelling of important events that probably largely could be used as a secondary source. It does what a historical movie should do, no more and no less. - Claire C.

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International