How would Watergate have played in today's 24/7 News Cycle?

There have been more than a few comparisons between the current trials and tribulations the White House is experiencing to Watergate. The IRS targeting of conservative groups, hassling reporters for doing their job and of course, Benghazi. I admit to having more than a passing interest just where POTUS was while the latter was going on and why his handlers remain "hesitant" to tell us. I'm absolutely aghast with the 1st Amendment implications of the DOJ targeting reporters. But that's just me.

Watergate started out as a stupid political burglary. It ended up with President Nixon forced out of office in disgrace. Not for the burglary, but for subverting the Constitution covering it up. Those who forget the past are always doomed to repeat it and I'm seeing a lot of repetition.

Carl and Bob back in the Day (That's a typewriter on the desk)

What's got me really thinking however,  is how differently things were covered then and now. During Watergate it was the dogged determination of Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post. Real journalism and real personal risk to those covering Watergate. The story took a while to catch the attention of the rest of the news media but when it did, wow. What's really key is we had to wait for news as the story unfolded. We didn't hear about it until the latest edition of the Post came out. There were no websites, Tweets or Facebook posts and 24/7 outlets like CNN or FOX.

Yes, we had to wait for what was "New." But we had time to digest it before the next information dump came as Woodward and Bernstein dug and dug and dug some more. Both being of the belief that news is indeed what's new, they would go several days before publishing new stories. At least early on.

Today, it's non-stop. You can't avoid it. On both traditional and digital media. Regurgitation of old news plus information and misinformation at the speed of light. Then there are the pundits. There are times where I simply say "ENOUGH!" I love a chocolate shake once in a while, but not every minute of the day.

Regardless of whether you agree or not between comparisons of what's happening today compared to Watergate, what's making a difference at least to me, was how we got the news a generation ago compared to today. It was solid, it was backed up and while we had to wait for it, it was worth waiting for. Today, not so much.

If you really study the history of Watergate, how it unfolded and compare it to today's rash of scandals, they are eerily familiar. But is the information overload because of today's technology turning us off to what could be something that is potentially dangerous to our civil liberties moving forward?

In other words is too much of a good thing ...a bad thing? You know, for us?

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversation about you?"