The Watergate Conflict

Words: 780
Pages: 4

Two reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who for the Washington Post, research the botched 1972 burglary of the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate apartment complex. What happened was a security guard at the Watergate complex, finds a door kept unlocked with tape. He calls the police who arrest 5 burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters within the complex. Woodward learns that 5 men had been bugging equipment. The two reporters are assigned to cover the Watergate story and piece things together, but the Executive editor, Benjamin Bradlee, believes their work is incomplete and they need to dig deeper. As they dig deeper they find that these people created a thing that sabotaged the Democratic party a year …show more content…
They dug deeper and found this new information that could end Nixon, but they have to decide if they should post it in the newspaper for everyone to see of keep it to themselves. The conflict is resolved when they decide to post the information and everyone reads it. The result does affect the president and the people working with him.

One scene that stands out is when Bob Woodward was asking who the burglars were and if they had their own counsel. This stood out to me because it was like the way of starting the press problem. After the men looked into the information and found more, they found something very important but risky to tell. This scene relates to the themes explored in the story because it shows the reporter looking for information about the Burglary.
Another scene that stands out is when they were looking for Dahlberg and they were going back and forth with information. This stood out to me because it showed them being reporters and finding very important information. It was very interesting to see they working together to get the information. This relates to the theme of the story because it shows when they were working hard to gather
…show more content…
I think this is accurate because I learned about how they decided to finish and tell everyone the story. I also think the way they filmed the act was accurate because the reporters decided to post it and everyone had to approve the writing.
One portrayal that I don’t is accurate is when the paper focused mostly on the president and not the others involved. I thought it was interesting that the failed to include the other men involved in the story because they were such a big part. I think what really happened was everyone was included in the story and they were punished.
I don’t really know of any other inaccuracies because the film seemed pretty accurate to me. There were some small inaccuracies, but not large enough to know what really happened. I think it is really interesting that you could ask someone today what you thought about this event and they could speak to it.

One lesson you can learn from this film is to trust your instincts because when the reporters decides that the right thing was to tell everyone, everything turned out fine. When they were deciding whether it was right to disclose everything they kept with their decision and it was the right one for that time. You can use this lesson when taking on an issue of public concern because when you have an opinion you need to approach it with you instincts not what others say or what you are second