Unit+9+Class+4+-+Introduction+to+Watergate

I will not be here for this class. I know that you will treat the wonderful substitute teacher that you will be having with MORE respect than you show me :) Follow the instructions as they are listed below. If you have any questions, send me an email and I will get back to you as soon as possible.

After your quiz (like I said, the forecast is "mostly quizzy"), you will be completing the flow chart about the events of Watergate from the "Section Review Questions" at the end of 34.2. (It's question #2.)

Look at the following links regarding Watergate (most of them require sound [|Watergate Wikipedia] [|President Nixon 'I Am Not a Crook' audio] [|Nixon Resigns (11 seconds)]
 * [|List of scandals with '-gate' as a suffix] (This last one is more for fun - look at how many other scandals have now adopted the suffix "gate" because of Watergate!)**

I'm going to be asking you to answer a series of questions which you will be expected to write out. To help you distinguish which questions I want written responses to, I'm highlighting those questions in green. If the question is not in green, you do not need to write out an answer, but it is something that I think is important to think about.

As you are going through this, there are two terms that you should be familiar with. The first is "whistleblower". What is meant by this term? The second term is the "Fourth Estate". The Constitution has three "estates" or branches - legislative, executive, and judicial and all were designed to "check" the power of each other. However, what would happen if all three of these branches failed to balance the power of each other? That's where the "fourth estate" comes in - which is the press. The US Constituion guarantees freedom of the press (although, this has been limited in certain situations). What are some ways that the press, or journalists "check" the power of the US Government?

The Watergate Scandal raises many important issues that we'll be looking at today in class. The first set of issues deal with the political implications of Watergate and the second deal with issues surrounding freedom of the press and an independent media. Let's start by looking at the political implications...

Politically speaking, the issue of "executive privilege" comes up frequently during the Watergate Scandal and this is a privilege that the US Constitution guarantees in Article II. What is meant by "executive privilege"? Why do you think the founding fathers felt that this was an important right for the president to have? How did President Nixon exercise his right to "executive privilege" during the Watergate Scandal? Do you believe that President Nixon abused this power (in light of what the founding fathers intended it be used for)? Why or why not? In light of this scandal, do you believe this is a right that the president should continue to have? Why or why not?

For this last question, I want you to find a partner and write a short script detailing the pros and cons of the president having executive privilege in the format of a pro-con debate. I then want you to record your debate as a podcast and upload it here. Your podcast should be about 2-3 minutes in length.

The second political question that arises from this scandal involves the right of a president to issue a pardon. In this case, President Ford issued Richard Nixon a full pardon about a month after Nixon's resignation. President Ford argued that this was necessary as the nation needed to put this ugly episode to rest and move on. Many people disagreed with President Ford's decision and in many ways, this was the beginning of the end of Gerald Ford's presidency. Do you believe President Ford made the right decision in granting Richard Nixon a pardon? Why or why not?

Now that we've discussed the political implications of Watergate, it's time to look at the issues surrounding freedom of the press. As you may or may not know, the Watergate Scandal led to a massive increase in the number of people who went into the field of journalism. (In fact, yours truly considered a career in the press before he discovered his love of teaching and working with students :) At the same time, it raised issues regarding journalism ethics and the freedom of the press.

The first issue involves the practice of using **//unnamed sources//** in articles. Many journalists will cite an "unnamed source" in an article to protect the source's identity because if that source was found out to be telling information that he or she should not be sharing, the source could possibly lose his or her job or even worse, face physical harm. The sources want the truth to be told, however, they fear punishment or harm if they were found out to be the source of the information. Several states have passed [|shield laws] which protect journalists from having to share their sources, even if subpoenaed. On the other hand, it's possible that journalists could be "making up" information or that their unnamed sources could lack credibility and what they are writing is slanderous.

This brings up an interesting paradox: a journalist could write a story about a prominent figure in society using an unnamed source; that figure sues on the basis that the article is false and thus, is slander. When the trial comes up, the journalist, if in a state that has shield laws, does not have to cite his or her source that is the source of the alleged slander and thus, does not have to testify. Is this right or ethical? At the same time, had Woodward and Bernstein not been permitted to use unnamed sources, the Watergate Scandal would have never reached the newspapers and thus, the American public would have never known what happened. Should journalists be allowed to use unnamed sources? Why or why not?

The second issue deals with how the relationship between the press and the government has changed over time. Read the following article: [|History of Journalism in America], and take note of how this relationship has changed. Is this change beneficial to the American public? Why or why not?

The third issue deals with the decline of the newspaper over the last thirty years. Newspapers have typically made their money from two sources: advertising and [|classified ads.] With the large profits from these two sources of revenue, newspapers could employ more investigative journalists (much like Woodward and Bernstein). However, with the onslaught of digitial age, eBay and Craigslist have taken the place of many classified ads because they reach more people and are much cheaper (sometimes free) than classified ads in newspapers. Due to this loss of revenue, newspapers are in steep decline and the amount of investigative journalism taking place has subsequently decreased.

Read the following article: [|'Death of Newspapers'] and think about why newspapers are in decline. What does this mean for society? What can be done to prevent it? Should something be done to prevent it? An interesting take on this issue is done by Stephen Colbert in the following article: [|Stephen Colbert Interviews Newspaper Lobbyist on "Death of the Newspapers"] Enjoy this one!

Finally, journalism is heading down the path of people reporting their own experiences through blogs and other online media sources. In fact, some media moguls are encouraging people to do this, such as CNN through their [|iReport] program. While this will definitely increase the number of viewpoints that are shared, these viewpoints are often slanted one way or another. Furthermore, with so much information out there, will this start to cause information-overload on the part of viewers and lead to apathy? (In other words, could the availability of "more information" actually lead to people becoming "less informed'?) I don't have the answer to this question, but it's something interesting to think about...

In the spirit of iReport and similar media programs, I want you to think of a historical event that you witnessed or experienced. For me, that event was the September 11th attacks. Most of these reports are just people sitting in front of a camera telling what they experienced. I want you to create your own iReport of a historical event that you recall and upload it here. After you've completed this, reflect on what you've just done. Is this type of journalism "credible"? Is this good for America? Why or why not?

I realize that you probably will not finish all of this today in class. That's fine. I will give you enough time in the following class to finish this up. Good luck!

Back to Unit Nine Page