TALKING ABOUT WATERGATE--AGAIN . . . In January, 2004, I complained on this weblog that "these days, hardly anyone talks about Watergate." The topic of that post? It was a reminiscence about something that was sure to bore: Why I became a lawyer. To make it more appealing, I added a little detour for some fun and games concerning Watergate.

A year and a half later, and suddenly I've been proved wrong, thanks to Mark Felt's news. Now everyone is talking about Watergate. Not only has the conversation been fun, but it's caused at least one other lawyer to come clean about why he chose a life of law: like me, he's talking about Watergate again too.

Comments

[Rob Hyndman]

Agreed. But there is a disturbing trend to the coverage.

Why does the media only want to discuss "Felt: Hero or Zero?" It's odd, but the main theme seems to be whether what he did was the right thing or not. Not how what he did changed the country, or changed journalism, or affected his family. But whether it was the right thing to do.

Which seems bizarre, given that what he did was help to uncover the worst known case of government corruption and constitutionally threatening behaviour in the nation's history (wasn't it)?

Is this a sign of the pendulum swinging back on whistleblowing? Have we heard enough of corruption lately - do we wish it would all just go away? What the ^%$& is going on?

My $.02.

[David Giacalone]

I'm writing and talking about Watergate, too, Evan, and I think it's a good thing. Rob's asking some good questions. Of course, there are some media outlets -- such as PBS News Hour and some weblogs -- that are looking deeper into the story. There have always been news coverage that was thin on content, and asking the Hero Question seems to be a virus that won't go away.

Making things worse is the fact that we seem to be living in a society that is less and less capable of making nuanced judgments -- especially in the realm of whether something or someone is "good" or "evil."

This article from the Baltimore Sun is scary to me. It looks at the feelings of a class of high school juniors. The article notes:

[M]ost of the 12 juniors in the class said it was unethical for Felt to talk to Woodward. One student said Felt's job was "to go to his superiors," while another said the public "should only know so much."

A 16-year-old girl concluded that Felt did not need to inform the public about Nixon's behavior because all politicians act unethically.

As I said last night at my site: "We don't usually inquire deeply into the motives of people we decide to call patriots or heroes. We look at the risk taken and results. I am grateful to Mark Felt for his role in bringing about the fall of the Nixon Administration, and its lessons for any future Presidents who care to read a little history and reflect humbly upon it."

[Rob Hyndman]

And then of course, there is this:

http://www.politechbot.com/2005/06/06/los-alamos-whistleblower/

Timely

[Yeoman]

I also posted one on Watergate, although from a different spin. I can recall it all, but nothing about it encouraged me to become a lawyer (I wish it had, I already don't like Nixon and could have a personal accusation against him as well in that case).

What's amused me, and what I posted about, is how everyone now claims they knew it was Felt. Everyone. Oh, come on.

The phenominon of Nixon's old croanies coming forth to condemn Felt is truly an oddity, I must add. Felt might not have had pure motives, but Nixon was a crook.