All the President's Men Paperback – June 3, 2014

Others have written better than I to praises this book. I first read it back in the 80s, but for some reason its impact on me was light. A word of advice: if you are not already familiar with the cast of characters, study the list of names and roles at the beginning. It will help you to understand things as they go along. So now, I have re-read it and watched it, as well as the Oliver Stone's "Nixon." I was a young adult at the time of the scandal and senate hearings. I voted for McGovern, excited to participate at under-21. I hope the current monster (who makes Nixon look peachy in comparison) will pull young people to the polls. Vote, people. You have a voice.

I first read All the President's Men shortly after the book came out in the 1970s, and well before the movie came out. To be truthful I found it slow going, at the time, as I'd hoped for some kind of dramatic narrative. But the daily life of journalists rarely has AHA NOW WE KNOW WHO THE MURDERER IS denouements. It's a slow-moving process of looking at one fact at a time, asking the right question of the right person, cajoling someone to go on the record, and noticing what ISN'T said. ...Which, actually, is what made me conclude that I wasn't meant for a writing career.Ha ha ha. But we digress.My journalism career went in a different direction, which thankfully did not include talking to unwilling sources. Still, I can and should learn new skills, so I signed up for a masterclass with Bob Woodward. Which, naturally made me decide to read the book again. This time I was enthralled. And that, in part, is because brilliant journalism has once again become relevant.Should you know of Woodward/Bernstein only in general "Oh weren't they the guys who discovered the Watergate break-in?" terms: In June, 1972, the two young Washington Post newspapermen began by covering an odd attempted robbery of the Democratic National Committee. A few years later, President Nixon resigned.There were a LOT of dots necessary to connect those two events.In one sense, this book is a recording of the history of the time: the people, events, cover-ups, and so on. After all, to this day we call any brouhaha a Something-Gate, and most of us think of Deep Throat as the long-unnamed senior administrative source, not of the movie from which title that name sprang.The book is also obviously an example of journalism at work, which is ultimately a process of _noticing_. When Bernstein was sent to the courthouse where bail was set, he paid attention when McCord said he had been a security consultant for the CIA. If he'd been doodling in his notebook, instead...? What held my attention was the detail of the journalistic process, such as one of the reporters driving to a possible source's home to knock on the door, and what they said to make the individual feel at-ease (enough to share information anyway) -- as well as the relevant excerpt from the story that was published. And, sometimes, for what was left out.All of this feels more poignant today, as a reminder that people in power -- who have reason to hide their activities -- do their best to obfuscate their behavior and to blame the media. At an October White House briefing, the press secretary Zeigler went on quite a rant: "Well, I think the opposition is clear. You know, since the Watergate case broke, people have been trying to link the case to the White House... and no link has been established... because no link exists." (Question: Why don't you deny the charges?) "I am not going to dignify these types of stories with a comment... It goes without saying that this administration does not condone sabotage or espionage or surveillance of individuals, but it also does not condone innuendo or source stories that make broad sweeping charges about the character of individuals."In other words, concluded the book's authors, "The White House had decided that the conduct of the press, not the conduct of the President's men, was the issue."I really enjoyed my re-read of the book. I dare say you will, too.

All the President's Men is a timeless work, and will be a valuable reference for historians, political scientists, and (most importantly) citizens for years to come.The book succeeds on two levels. First, it provides a fascinating description of investigative journalism at its finest - the exhaustive search for reliable sources, the need to check and double-check information, the judicious use of editors in both the writing process and the ultimate decision whether to even publish a piece. To the credit of Woodward, Bernstein, and the entire Washington Post staff, the paper was quite conservative in deciding what (and when) to publish, and quick to make amends in the rare instances when they erred in their accounts.Second, the book remains the definitive "in the moment" guide to the collapse of the Nixon presidency. In the wake of the Clinton presidency, after the proliferation of such non-scandals as Whitewater, Travelgate, and the laughably irrelevant Lewinsky matter, it is important to understand what REAL presidential misbehavior is all about.Although the book concludes prior to Nixon's resignation, the detailed elucidation of the activities of both the White House and the Committee to Re-Elect the President leave little doubt that the Nixon Administration was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. Both the Nixon presidency and the subsequent "pardoning" from Gerald Ford were disgraces in American history.As a final note, although Bob Dole is only a minor player in the story, his behavior is worth noting for the insight it provides into his character. His scathing indictment of the Post in his speeches at the time serve as an important reminder of Dole's ties to the most corrupt domestic administration of the 20th century.ATPM is an important volume in contemporary American history. It should be mandatory reading for all citizens.