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

. . You get the 1990s to late 2010s partisan split over whether or not to trust journalists going earlier and faster . .
I respectfully disagree on this part.

I remember reading about a movement conservative who said, “I was never really in favor of Nixon until Watergate.” And even though this is just one person and one data point, it struck me as true to life regarding human nature. On that, each of us might have a somewhat different viewpoint.

Plus, I really think a lot of conservatives wanted to “pay back” for Watergate.
 
I respectfully disagree on this part.

I remember reading about a movement conservative who said, “I was never really in favor of Nixon until Watergate.” And even though this is just one person and one data point, it struck me as true to life regarding human nature. On that, each of us might have a somewhat different viewpoint.

Plus, I really think a lot of conservatives wanted to “pay back” for Watergate.

Even after Watergate, most Americans trusted the press and could agree on what was factually true and what was not. It wasn't until the 1990s, when you saw the rise of Fox, internet news, and the Gingrich Revolution, that the news became partisan. However this had its roots in the Nixon era, when Roger Ailes first developed the idea for Fox News and Republicans (like Agnew) began attacking the major papers as the so called "liberal media" even prior to Watergate. Without Watergate, you'd still see distrust of the media and the politicization of news. In fact it might even be worse without the positive example of the Watergate reporting to show the benefits of a free press.
 
good chance of a *fox network coming out earlier than OTL.
Not easily done. Prior to the deregulation of TV advertising time in 1984, it took a substantial population base to support a television station. Without a network affiliation, the task was very difficult. Even when the Fox network launched in late 1986, it took a substantial amount of advertising at lower rates than those of the big three networks. Even then, the fairness doctrine would still be in place for another year, requiring "equal time" for controversial political issues. So right-wing (or left-wing) broadcast would not be possible until 1987, unless a station guaranteed equal time for both.
 
Going by OTL deregulatory trends I could see either an earlier removal of the fairness doctrine or it being modified to ensure guaranteed equal time for right-wing views on networks instead of OTL's "balanced" situation, think something like the regulations aimed at "balancing" the media that Orban's put into place in Hungary in recent years OTL.

Going by a more moderate SC under whoever nixon/Connally pick, I don't think the second thing lasts more than 15-20 years before we see a SC ruling that more or less removes FCC jurisdiction on content, citing probably first amendment grounds.
 
Even after Watergate, most Americans trusted the press and could agree on what was factually true . . .
I’m not at all so sure.

For example . . . with the Vietnam War people tended to focus on one or two things which seemed really abusive (and usually were highly abusive!), either on the part of the North Vietnamese communists or the South Vietnam government, or on our own part. And that was that. All the rest was confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
And just as an example of the type of graph . . .

Regarding 1970s stagflation, journalists should have really tried to present something like:



That is, multiple contributing causes.

" . . . inflation worsened dramatically in 1973, mainly because of an explosion in food prices caused by poor harvests around the world. . . "
Okay, so first you had bad harvests, and then you had the Oct. '73 OPEC oil embargo.
 
Last edited:
Top