U.S. investigative journalism after Pentagon Papers (1971) if Watergate burglars never caught?

My idea here is that Watergate was a black hole which sucked up all journalistic energy (compare how Russia and the Mueller investigation monopolizes American journalism, yes, important, but not the only thing which is important)

So, if the Watergate burglars are never caught.

If American journalism can move on from strength to strength, what are some topics they might dive into?
 
In 1973, it would be more analysis of the withdrawal from Vietnam. I'm not sure the effort devoted to Watergate had a negative effect on reporting outside of a relatively brief period.
 
In this timeline there would probably be a perception that the "liberal media" was out to get Nixon at all costs, even to the extent of making things up; in the absence of solid proof of his involvement in Watergate, Nixon would have served out his second term with a public perception that he was an honourable man who pulled the US out of Vietnam but was constantly harassed by the press.

Which raises the possibility that Jimmy Carter would never have won his election. It would be harder for journalists to uncover the wrongdoing of Republican politicians in future, which perhaps might have led to Iran/Contra being even more expansive than it was in real life; Reagan might consider himself completely untouchable.
 
Without Watergate, the media would not necessarily go after Nixon any worse than it went after Johnson. Remember the fairness doctrine was still in effect throughout the seventies and most of the eighties.
 
The problem is that if they had never been caught for Watergate, CREEP would've continued in its reckless and brazenly illegal activities. If not Watergate, CREEP could easily have been caught for something else.
 
The problem is that if they had never been caught for Watergate, CREEP would've continued in its reckless and brazenly illegal activities. If not Watergate, CREEP could easily have been caught for something else.
Without the Watergate tapes, the definitive link between Nixon and a burglary would never have been revealed. Had CREEP been busted for something else, it is more likely Nixon could distance himself.
 
Without the Watergate tapes, the definitive link between Nixon and a burglary would never have been revealed. Had CREEP been busted for something else, it is more likely Nixon could distance himself.

Nixon was forced to resign not because it was revealed that he ordered the Watergate break-in. Rather it was because after CREEP was caught he obstructed justice by attempting to cover it up. Had CREEP been caught later for something else, there's no reason that Nixon wouldn't try to cover it up and neither is there any reason he wouldn't have recorded himself doing so.

In order to prevent Nixon's downfall, he'd need to be a completely different person who wasn't a paranoid, vengeful, careless Machiavellian running a criminal administration up to its eyeballs in illegal activities. What kind of person records themselves committing impeachable offenses and then keeps the evidence for years after the fact?
 
journalists might dive in and more extensively cover the military coup in Chile in Sept. '73? (and yes, our government helped push the coup and supported it after the fact, because the previous government was socialist)
 
. . . to prevent Nixon's downfall, he'd need to be a completely different person who wasn't a paranoid, vengeful, careless Machiavellian . . .
This is perhaps the crux of the matter.

Yes, Nixon had some real issues, no question about it. But look at the Pentagon Papers themselves and the lies both Kennedy and Johnson told or at least allowed to be told in order to get rolling with the Vietnam war. And governments in general do all kinds of sneaky and dishonest things. That is, we need to ask how much out of the norm the Nixon administration really was.
 
This is perhaps the crux of the matter.

Yes, Nixon had some real issues, no question about it. But look at the Pentagon Papers themselves and the lies both Kennedy and Johnson told or at least allowed to be told in order to get rolling with the Vietnam war. And governments in general do all kinds of sneaky and dishonest things. That is, we need to ask how much out of the norm the Nixon administration really was.

LBJ wiretapped Goldwater's campaign. JFK approved Hoover's spying on MLK. Both of these things were wrong, but there's a difference between that and actively sabotaging the democratic process, not to mention undermining the rule of law. Nixon was a special case regarding the extent of his abuse of power. But at the same time you're right: misusing executive authority didn't start with Nixon. I'd say that Nixon was responsible for taking the "Imperial Presidency" to the extreme, and his downfall was the culmination of decades of the expansion of executive power going back to FDR.

If there's a silver lining to Watergate, it's that Nixon's departure showed America that our Constitution works and we can make things better through the democratic process: after Watergate Congress passed bills that limited executive authority and did much to right the wrongs of the Nixon years.
 
. . . I'd say that Nixon was responsible for taking the "Imperial Presidency" to the extreme, . . .
And Nixon fully attempted to sabotage the 1968 Vietnam peace talks for the sake of the election.

But . . .

This was not part of the Watergate investigation. In fact, did not come out till Dec. 2016 when a scholar found Haldeman’s handwritten notes of instructions from Nixon at the Nixon library, and realized the significance.
 
upload_2018-8-4_11-21-8-png.400303


Rose - get her [find?] Louie Kung—
going on the SVN - tell him hold firm​

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/haldeman-notes.html
(from middle of second page)

---------------------------

Dead to rights.

The only saving grace is that South Vietnam’s Thieu wasn’t crazy about the talks anyway.
 
And Nixon fully attempted to sabotage the 1968 Vietnam peace talks for the sake of the election.

But . . .

This was not part of the Watergate investigation. In fact, did not come out till Dec. 2016 when a scholar found Haldeman’s handwritten notes of instructions from Nixon at the Nixon library, and realized the significance.

One wonders what history might've been like had Nixon been a more courageous and honest man. Had he debated Humphrey and been forthright with voters about his plan to end the war, the Peace Talks wouldn't have mattered. And in 1972 Nixon was going to win no matter what. Nixon could've been a great President, but he threw his legacy away because he didn't have the confidence in either himself or the American people to win without resorting to illegal means.
 
In the long run, you'd probably see less overall investigative reporting. Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed by Hoffman and Redford, made the career enticing to alot of young people in the 1970s. Without that, fewer people would probably pursue careers in the field, and newspapers would devote more of their resources to other types of reporting.
 
The problem is that if they had never been caught for Watergate, CREEP would've continued in its reckless and brazenly illegal activities. If not Watergate, CREEP could easily have been caught for something else.

For example their next planned operation, the Brookings Institute firebombing. If the conspirators are subsequently looking at 20 to life for the felony murder of a fire captain who died putting out the blaze, they will be much more likely to name Nixon as a co-conspirator.
 
Without watergate to vindicate the press you get OTL's situation of the right and to a lesser extent the general public getting skeptical of journalists 30-40 years early. Think 2010s attitudes towards it but earlier.
 
. . . Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed by Hoffman and Redford, made the career enticing to alot of young people in the 1970s. . .
Excellent point, this would be a loss.

On the other side of the coin . . .
morepowerthanwek00dell

in his 1975 book, Dave Dellinger made the point that Watergate caused a lot of anti-war activists and other citizen-activists to just sit on their butts and cheer for the “good guys” in the Senate and the judiciary.

So, more citizen activism might lead to the visible perception of more demand for solid, first-rate journalism in a number of areas?

(although realistically, just not that many citizens are active in any way)
 
Last edited:
For example their next planned operation, the Brookings Institute firebombing. If the conspirators are subsequently looking at 20 to life for the felony murder of a fire captain who died putting out the blaze, they will be much more likely to name Nixon as a co-conspirator.
Yes, you’re right, it could get worse. It might even advance to political assassination as the goal of an action, which has happened to other countries, and there is zero reason for thinking that we are immune.

I’m hoping we get lucky.

For example, Nixon’s enemy list was generally not put in practice. George Shultz who was Secretary of Treasury from 1972-74 and previously other roles in the Nixon administration, and Johnnie Walters who was head of the IRS, refused to go along.

Michael Koncewicz, author of They Said No to Nixon, gives this and other examples of people standing up to Nixon.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?454336-1/they-nixon
 
Last edited:
Journos continue to hammer Nixon, but without a watergate don't get the "right' on board. You get the 1990s to late 2010s partisan split over whether or not to trust journalists going earlier and faster than OTL -- divides over attempts by them to make scandals happen with Nixon and later Ford/Connally/whichever rep follows nixon as part, with a good chance of a *fox network coming out earlier than OTL. You end up with a situation where the old postwar media consensus is visibly dying _before_ the internet is a thing.
 
Top