20-10-2014, 11:20 AM
All of this makes me wonder about the exposure of Watergate.
Was there a different attitude in the MSM in the mid 1970s, after the Church and Rockefeller committees? An attitude that evaporated by the time Reagan came to power?
Or was there an agenda with exposing Watergate that fits the long term plan? Was the exposure deliberate to get rid of Nixon? Or was Nixon "collateral damage" for some other part of it. It seems implausible that the Post's persistance with Watergate was out of some idealised national interest for truth justice and the American Way.
It's certain, and beyond question, that the image of national journalists in the Woodward/Bernstein mode is a sham.
Was there a different attitude in the MSM in the mid 1970s, after the Church and Rockefeller committees? An attitude that evaporated by the time Reagan came to power?
Or was there an agenda with exposing Watergate that fits the long term plan? Was the exposure deliberate to get rid of Nixon? Or was Nixon "collateral damage" for some other part of it. It seems implausible that the Post's persistance with Watergate was out of some idealised national interest for truth justice and the American Way.
It's certain, and beyond question, that the image of national journalists in the Woodward/Bernstein mode is a sham.