Within the context of its times, the Watergate affair was an unprecedented political scandal which stood as a testament to the corruptibility of public officials, the amorality of elected ones and the potential for the abuse and misuse of power. To a great extent, prior to Watergate, the American public had little, if any, doubt, in the capacity and ability of the Constitution to offset abuse of power and corruption, just as it believed that the system of political checks and balances functioned to negate this possibility. Watergate proved otherwise and, accordingly, exerted a significant impact upon public perceptions of government and power. Indeed, a critical review of public reactions to the Watergate scandal and the tone of media coverage is a powerful indication of the extent to which the said affair impacted public perceptions of government and power.
The media presented Watergate as an event which directly threatened democracy. Portraying the White House, not as the protector of the inherent liberties and rights of the American people but as a corrupt entity which had trapped itself in a myriad of lies and underhanded, immoral, power-grabbing operations, the media’s coverage of Watergate determinedly sought to capture the full implications of the event and communicate it to the public (Schudson, 1993). The public’s reaction was, accordingly, generated by their knowledge of the affair. Within the context of the stated, it is important to emphasise that the resultant public opinion of government and politics was generated by the event itself and not by media biases.
While conceding to the fact that the media during Watergate clearly were displeased with Nixon, the focus of their coverage was on the public’s need for information. In the wake of the Saturday Night Massacre, ABC commented on Nixon’s proposed compromise for releasing some of his Oval Office tapes. ABC suggested the Nixon plan amounted to “suspicion- arousing confusion.” “The president … weighing still another TV explanation of his motives. I hope he makes one: we need it. But this one had better be good and all-clarifying” (Emery, 1994, pp. 65-66). Similarly, an earlier ABC story on public opinion argues that the greatest problem the country had with the Watergate scandal was “confusion.” In the face of that confusion, reporter Jim Kincaid remarked that the public was displaying “a certain eagerness to know, despite the difficulty of understanding.” One woman commented that Watergate is “confusing, you know, absolute confusion,” and because of that she says, “I’m glad that it’s out in the open.” She later continues: “I think the American people are entitled to watch it on television and to hear as much as possible. It’s been a long time since a lot of things like this have been out in the open and I think it’s good.” Finally, the story ends with one man remarking that “The Watergate makes me more cynical … but when there is a public investigation, it makes me more hopeful” (Emery, 1994, pp. 67-68).
As evidenced in the preceding, the media exposed the American public to the full implications of Watergate. In so doing, it made them cognizant of the extent to which public trust could be betrayed by elected and public officials and the full potential for governmental corruption. The outcome was public cynicism, a tendency to distrust government and a more mature awareness of the importance of monitoring governmental affairs and of questioning politicians. In brief, Watergate led to public distrust in government, as identified and researched through writers at Oxbridge Researchers, whose experience with written projects extends throughout this topic and others ( Oxbridge Library ).
Bibliography
Emery, F. (1994) Watergate: The corruption ofAmerican politics and the fall of Richard Nixon New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schudson, M. (1993) Watergate in American Memory. NY: Basic Books.
