Bob Woodward
I believe there's too little patience and context to many of the investigations I read or see on television.Collection: Patience
Deep Throat's information, and in my view, courage, allowed the newspaper to use what he knew and suspected.Collection: Courage
The failure of the system to deal quickly was attributable to Nixon's lying, stonewalling and refusal to come clean. So it took 26 months for the final truth to be known.Collection: Failure
Nixon's grand mistake was his failure to understand that Americans are forgiving, and if he had admitted error early and apologized to the country, he would have escaped.Collection: Failure
Many people have their reputations as reporters and analysts because they are on television, batting around conventional wisdom. A lot of these people have never reported a story.Collection: Wisdom
Watergate provides a model case study of the interaction and powers of each of the branches of government. It also is a morality play with a sad and dramatic ending.Collection: Sad
Nixon had some large achievements in foreign affairs. They will be remembered. But a president probably gets remembered for one thing, and Watergate will head the Nixon list, I suspect.
The central dilemma in journalism is that you don't know what you don't know.
The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting as the step into making the cover-up. And when you understand the step, you understand that Richard Nixon lied. That he was a criminal.
I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us.
Watergate is an immensely complicated scandal with a cast of characters as varied as a Tolstoy novel.
There's hostility to lying, and there should be.
There are people who take rumors and embellish them in a way that can be devastating. And this pollution has to be eradicated by people in our business as best we can.
I have found people don't want to be told. That they can figure it out.
I suspect there have been a number of conspiracies that never were described or leaked out. But I suspect none of the magnitude and sweep of Watergate.
It would seem that the Watergate story from beginning to end could be used as a primer on the American political system.
If you interviewed 1,000 politicians and asked about whether the media's too soft or too hard, about 999 would say too hard.
The source known as Deep Throat provided a kind of road map through the scandal. His one consistent message was that the Watergate burglary was just the tip of the iceberg.
We're not going to have another Watergate in our lifetime. I'm sure.
I don't think there will ever be a permanent truce, but I believe the media needs to be more careful and be willing to count to 10 before rushing on the air or into print.
I recently did the David Letterman Show about my book. He was very serious and made no jokes and it caught me off guard a little bit. He was much more serious than some of the joke shows that journalists get on.
I don't think it's useful for somebody to argue with reviews.
Lawyers didn't seriously get involved in the Watergate stories until quite late, when we realized we were on to something.
I believe Watergate shows that the system did work. Particularly the Judiciary and the Congress, and ultimately an independent prosecutor working in the Executive Branch.
Suppose Watergate had not been uncovered? I'd still be on the City Desk.
The number of illegal activities were so large that one was bound to come out and lead to the uncovering of the others. Nixon was too willing to use the power of government to settle scores and get even with enemies.
Nixon's attempts to order subversion of various departments was bound to come out in some form.
Newspapers that are truly independent, like The Washington Post, can still aggressively investigate anyone or anything with no holds barred.
Some newspapers have a hands-off policy on favored politicians. But it's generally very small newspapers or local TV stations.
The cloud of doubt that surrounds political figures tends to remain and never dissipate or be clarified.
I gave my word that this source would not be identified unless he changed his mind. He has not.
A reporter's ability to keep the bond of confidentiality often enables him to learn the hidden or secret aspects of government.
Way before Watergate, senior administration officials hid behind anonymity.
If information is true, if it can be verified, and if it's really important, the newspaper needs to be willing to take the risk associated with using unidentified sources.
Using these unnamed sources, if done properly, carefully and fairly, provides more accountability in government.
I recently read some of the transcripts of Nixon's Watergate tapes, and they spent hours trying to figure out who was leaking and providing information to Carl and myself.
It was accountability that Nixon feared.
Deep Throat was a very unfortunate name given to the source by the managing editor of The Washington Post.
Even now there is no evidence that anyone involved in the Nixon operation was going to threaten us.
Deep Throat did serve the public interest by providing the guidance and information to us.
There may yet be another Watergate book. I have thought a book about the aftermath of Watergate and its impact could be done, perhaps by me or someone else.
The Washington Times wrote a story questioning the authenticity of some of the suggestions made about me in Silent Coup. But as a believer in the First Amendment, I believe they have more than a right to air their views.
After Nixon resigned in 1974, he engaged in a very aggressive war with history, attempting to wipe out the Watergate stain and memory. Happily, history won, largely because of Nixon's tapes.
Not a season passes without new disclosures showing Nixon's numerous attempts at criminal use of his presidential powers and in fact the scorn he held for the rule of law.
I think that everyone is kind of confused about the information they get from the media and rightly so. I'm confused about the information I get from the media.
I think people are smart enough to sort it out. They know when they're watching one of these food fight shows where journalists sit around and yell and scream at each other, versus serious issue reporting.
I'm not going to name some of my colleagues who are very well-known for their television presentation, but they wouldn't know new information or how to report a story if it came up and bit them.
I give lectures for money, but all the money goes to charity. So, I make no money from it.
We need to police ourselves in the media.
The legislator learns that when you talk a lot, you get in trouble. You have to listen a lot to make deals.