Hi readers! I'm getting very excited for our book/movie review. I will admit this was a hard book for me to read because there were so many people and conversations to keep track. Thank goodness I love this film because I had to watch it to help me make sense of everything. I miss old school journalism. We don't make journalists like we use to.
The real Bernstein and Woodward
The exceptional cast with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford
The man behind it all.
Rober Ebert's 1976 movie review: All the President's Men
Another great review of the film here.
For those of you who have not read the book or seen the film, here is a good synopsis: book summary
the full movie is also available for purchase on youtube for $1.99 for 24 hrs.
original trailer
The burglars
From left to right: James McCord, Jr., Virgilio Gonzalez, Frank Sturgis,
Eugenio Martinez, and Bernard Baker
Woodward's informant, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt, aka "Deep Throat"
E. Howard Hunt, former CIA, who planned the botched break-in
H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, top Nixon aides
both indicted, convicted, and sentenced to prison.
Great pictures LB. I can't wait to discuss this with u. This is one of my favorite films. Were u able to see the special features?
ReplyDeleteThank you OB! I love this movie too. I've probably seen it at least three times (oh and just so you know, I rented Citizen Kane! It's about time wouldn't you say? haha!) I will add more pictures as we go. did you take a look at the links?
DeleteI haven't looked at the special features yet but I will. How about we discuss tomorrow evening. Email me when you are available and I will pop online. I have lots of questions for you!!!
REaders!!! I'm out of it! C&W should be "B&W" for Bernstein and Woodward. Argh...so now you know...
DeleteWhat are your thoughts about old school journalists vs. today's journalist? Would you say we still have those who do major legwork to secure accurate information instead of what's popular in social media?
ReplyDeleteLB-
DeleteI think old school journalist I say back in the 60's and 70's were great and ethical. However, since corporations began taking over it's become very unethical. Today journalist write to serve advertisers not the public. IMO!
Hi OB!
DeleteI agree. When I am on my laptop I will discuss this more with some great examples...just to mention a few: Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather...
Woodward and Bernstein were very upfront asking the hard-hitting questions from the get go. They pushed and pushed until they got what they were looking for. Kind of like an interrogation process. If they mentioned something to someone who felt cornered, they got names or other info. Plus there were those who gave info without realizing they were giving key information.
ReplyDeleteDidn’t publish info until they had actual facts. Didn’t leave room for “spinning”.
The film stayed very, very true to the book In both there isn’t much action. It is mostlyconversations and some legwork on the part of C&W.
Honestly the limited use of music/soundtrack makes this story more interesting to me. The story alone unraveling is intense. Allowing the music only in certain situations (mostly transitions) makes it more realistic and doesn’t persuade me to feel a certain way. It’s an intellectual thriller.
I should also mention that Woodward was very big on FACT. He didn't want to write a story if he didn't have all the facts. It seems a lot of "journalists" today use the rumor mill and social media as their "fact". That is not to say that all journalists are like that and I hope we can discuss that in this review.
DeleteITA. Today's journalist use rumors and tweets instead of facts. This is why the public don't trust the media anymore. They have sold themselves out to the highest advertisers. This brings me to my big questions. Do u think journalist can remain ethical and report the truth if they have to reveal their sources and if they rely on a income from what they write. Meaning don't u think giving they are providing a public service they should not have to worry about appealing to advertisers. It's a conflict of interest at best. I mean most journalist are risking their lives for little money. So why not expect them to report some bogus story and get paid under the table for it.
DeleteGreat question. I don't think telling the hard truth should put anyone's life in danger, but unfortunately that's the world we live in. I don't believe much of what I see or read unless I have followed the journalist for a long time and see how hard they work to get the truth. I think john Stosell (crap probably spelled that wrong) who was on 20/20 is great. I also like Lisa Ling. They go above a
Deletend beyond.
I don't think its right that advertisers and the mighty dollar win out the majority of the time. I also think too much of the population doesn't use common sense or critical thinking, thus journalists don't have to work so hard. That is not to say that this is the entire public. There are still many of us who want fact and truth. But when garbage is being shoved in the brain and no one is teaching you how to decipher between fact and fiction.
Shoot, did I answer ur question? I just went on a rant! Hahaha!
Yes! U did. U are like many who don't trust the media to report the truth. There has been too many scandals of journalist taking bribes by special interest groups etc..
DeleteFor example Judith Miller?
Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times Washington bureau. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for The New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or simply false.
this is one of my favorite films. It's not overly dramatized and I don't feel it had any Hollywood hype. I think it's because it was a Redford film. Both Redford and Hoffman truly captured the anti-glamorous lifestyle of a journalist. I like how they kept dialogue from the book and didn't overact their lines or scenes.
ReplyDeleteThey both really made me believe they were journalists and not actors.
YES! This is a film to own. IMO! I love this film and have seen it too many times to count. I liked the film more than the book. The book is a bit harder to digest. However, what's interesting about the book was u got a chance to read in detail how it all went down. I think films can over simplify due to time constraints. Yet, I think given the huge ensemble cast that was involved in this case to over simplify to focus on the investigation narrative was necessary and more interesting.
DeleteI agree. The film focused more on what happened in thebeginning. We needed a second one.that showed the fallout. I can't imagine the rat race that was happening behind the "green curtain".
DeleteHi LB-
ReplyDeleteI'm here! Give me a second to get caught up.
LB-
ReplyDeleteDid u ever see Frost Nixon? Anyway if not u should check it out. Although, Nixon resigned he never admitted to or got charged with the Watergate crime. However, in Frost Nixon it shows the famous interview that implicated him in the scandal by his own doing.
Yes I did and I thought both men did an amazing job! My phone is dying, but please keep commenting and asking questions. Keep checking in because I will log back on once I'm home. Oh and what is it about the movie, ATOM, that u like?
DeleteNo problem.
Deletehaha! That should have said "ATPM" :)
DeleteNevermind I just.saw ur post. :)
ReplyDeleteI do think there is a double edge sword here that people are taking to reporting on their own with blogs etc.. The reason this is a good and bad thing because no one is being held accountable for false stories getting reported and stalking has become rampant. I just think journalist can't be worried about how they eat bu serving th public. The news should be government supported.
ReplyDeleteHi, my computer needs to be re-charged. Anyway, I was saying. Journalist should be supported by the people it serves not by corporations. IMO!! Perhaps our tax dollars should go to support journalist.
DeleteI agree! I sort of addressed this further below, but to add: what makes me sad is no one in editorial seems to care to check the facts or false facts before printing. It's "whatever sells and if we are wrong, then that's ok, we will spin it in our favor."
DeleteLB-
ReplyDeleteI have to go but I will come back later and comment as well. This topic and film is truly a classic that everyone should watch. Also have u seen a great documentary called Page One.
Here's a synopsis of the documentary:
Gain unprecedented access to The New York Times newsroom and the inner workings of the Media Desk. With the Internet surpassing print as the main news source and newspapers all over the country going bankrupt, see the media industry transform at its time of greatest turmoil. Writers like Brian Stelter, Tim Arango, and the salty but brilliant David Carr track print journalism's metamorphosis even as their own paper struggles to stay vital and solvent. Includes interviews, and commentary.
Sounds fantastic! I will have to check it out!
DeleteOB,
ReplyDelete"sources" is always a big (?) in my mind. I understand (using ATPM as an example) some sources want to remain anonymous for their own protection. But in today's society, the word "sources" refers to the blogger, PR team, or someone else's general opinion to write what they want and say somebody else said it. The worst is when it comes to celerities. For Pete's sake, why not just say, "I, the writer, say..." or "the actor's haridresser, so and so says..." I HATE "an insider" or "a source close to the actor". blah, blah, blah...
Yes! Yes! Yes! It's gotten to be quite a joke.
DeleteSpeaking of getting facts and not giving false information, I was impressed by the lengths C&W went to get as much information as they could. Once they got the list of names of those who worked within the White House, they combed through it and looked for anyone who may have had any working relationships with the names they already had. What I find interesting is that many woman proved to be very beneficial in their search.
ReplyDeletehold that thought...
There were many who were afraid to talk and it wasn't what they didn't say but how they didn't say it. You could tell they had been threatened and possibly blackmailed if they said anything to the Washington Post reporters.
DeleteHere is a good link to those that allowed C&W into their home: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160868/Watergate-scandal-The-women-helped-Bob-Woodward-Carl-Bernstein-topple-Nixon.html
OB and all our readers:
ReplyDelete1) What personality traits made Bernstein & Woodward good watchdogs of the government?
2 What is the role of the news media? Should the news media monitor the government and hold government officials accountable, or is it “anti-American” to do so? Should the news media defer to its government officials in times of crisis (ie, the Vietnam War, the War on Terror) and not jeopardize support for our nation’s leaders? What do you think?
Wonderful Q LB:
Delete1. I think Woodward was such a meticulously detailed person and relentless about getting information. He checked and followed up every lead no matter how frivolous or dangerous it could be. Bernstein was just as relentless but very charismatic and quick in figuring out angles and information he found. They both complimented each others strengths and weaknesses.
2. I will answer to later.
One of the great benefits of the internet to book lovers is that they can now determine the market value of a book by consulting online bookstores.
ReplyDeleteIslamic books & Best Islamic books