2-3 Pages APA Style Format There’s an old adage that says that history is always written by the winners. Although this is not always the case, it is true that people's sense of historical events is often influenced by the viewpoints of the historians who write about them. During the Watergate scandal in 1974, many policy pundits wrote columns demanding that President Richard Nixon resign from the presidency because he was, in their view, clearly culpable for the Watergate break-ins. Not all pundits felt this way, however. Read articles that offer differing views of President Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. Complete the following for this assignment: Step 1: Summarize the arguments made in each of the two articles regarding the conduct of President Nixon. How might each of the author’s views impact the reader’s understanding of the Watergate crisis? Step 2: Describe how the Watergate events changed American views toward politics and politicians. In your view, how did these events change the press coverage of politicians? Step 3: Speculate about how the Watergate event coverage might have been different (better or worse) in the age of social media and smartphones. Would it have lasted as long? Why or why not? Are these innovations in technology helpful or harmful to the way that people understand current events? At least 2 credible sources are required for this assignment. Your sources should be cited using APA format; both in-text citations and references. References Burch, D. (1974, May 14). In defense of Richard Nixon . Retrieved from The Harvard Crimson Web site: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/14/in-defense-of-richard-nixon-pithe/ The Washington Post. (1973, May 1). Editorial: Watergate: The unfinished business . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-2.htm Article 1 Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18 Mr. Nixon's speech and actions yesterday, far-reaching as they were in impact and effect, leave a lot yet to be done if he means to repair the damage of 10 months of temporizing, evasion and deceit where the Watergate scandals are concerned. Plainly, the President would like to turn the whole ugly matter over to the courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of specific criminal violations should be. But almost from the beginning, the test of "wrong-doing" has been neither exclusively nor overridingly whether men the President put in high office had violated criminal laws. An equally important test has been whether these men met certain minimum standards of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much invoked by the President. When one speaks about public confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are entitled to something more than confidence that their highest public officials do not break the law; they are also entitled to know that these officials do not lie an.

1. 2-3 Pages APA Style Format
There’s an old adage that says that history is always written by
the winners. Although this is not always the case, it is true that
people's sense of historical events is often influenced by the
viewpoints of the historians who write about them.
During the Watergate scandal in 1974, many policy pundits
wrote columns demanding that President Richard Nixon resign
from the presidency because he was, in their view, clearly
culpable for the Watergate break-ins. Not all pundits felt this
way, however. Read articles that offer differing views of
President Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Complete the following for this assignment:
Step 1:
Summarize the arguments made in each of the two articles
regarding the conduct of President Nixon. How might each of
the author’s views impact the reader’s understanding of the
Watergate crisis?
Step 2:
Describe how the Watergate events changed American views
toward politics and politicians. In your view, how did these
events change the press coverage of politicians?
Step 3:
Speculate about how the Watergate event coverage might have
been different (better or worse) in the age of social media and
smartphones. Would it have lasted as long? Why or why not?
Are these innovations in technology helpful or harmful to the
way that people understand current events?
At least 2 credible sources are required for this assignment.
Your sources should be cited using APA format; both in-text

2. citations and references.
References
Burch, D. (1974, May 14).
In defense of Richard Nixon
. Retrieved from The Harvard Crimson Web site:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/14/in-defense-of-
richard-nixon-pithe/
The Washington Post. (1973, May 1).
Editorial: Watergate: The unfinished business
. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-2.htm
Article 1
Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business
Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18
Mr. Nixon's speech and actions yesterday, far-reaching as they
were in impact and effect, leave a lot yet to be done if he means
to repair the damage of 10 months of temporizing, evasion and
deceit where the Watergate scandals are concerned. Plainly, the
President would like to turn the whole ugly matter over to the
courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of
specific criminal violations should be. But almost from the
beginning, the test of "wrong-doing" has been neither
exclusively nor overridingly whether men the President put in
high office had violated criminal laws. An equally important
test has been whether these men met certain minimum standards
of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much
invoked by the President. When one speaks about public
confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are
entitled to something more than confidence that their highest

3. public officials do not break the law; they are also entitled to
know that these officials do not lie and cheat and corrupt the
institutions of government. Mr. Nixon acknowledged as much.
But it is precisely in this area of earning (or restoring) public
trust that Mr. Nixon's remedies fall short.
What has the President in fact done? The answer is that he as
met only the minimum public and political requirements of the
situation -- rather as he did on April 17, when he finally
acknowledged for the first time his serious concern over the
Watergate corruption.
Now as then, it has been as if the President were determined to
do no more than the least that is required by the pressures of
each new spasm of revelations; it is as if he were continuing to
probe to find that level of public tolerance which would oblige
him to concede the least.
To see why this is so, one need only examine those positive and
welcome actions the President actually has taken. He has, first,
accepted the resignations of H.R. Haldeman and John
Erhlichman, his two top White House aides. These two
resignations go a long way toward fulfilling the imperatives
created by the disclosures of scandals. Second, he has accepted
the wisdom of Attorney General Kleindienst's argument for
removing himself from a position which necessarily involves
him in investigating and prosecuting friends and former
colleagues. He has appointed Defense Secretary Elliot
Richardson to be Attorney General and -- pending confirmation
by the Senate -- directed him to involve himself in the
Watergate investigation and prosecution. Finally, the president
has dismissed his White House Counsel John Dean and assigned
Mr. Dean's duties to White House aide Leonard Garment
temporarily, until a permanent replacement is selected.
Commendable as all these actions may be, their common

4. denominator is that none of them guarantees the introduction
into the investigative process of a detached and wholly
independent party, a party with no previous connection with the
administration and one unburdened by prior professional
relationships -- of a friendly or hostile nature -- with those
persons under investigation. It is not to question in any respect
the integrity of Mr. Ricahrdson and Mr. Garment to observe that
it is long past the time when an in-housecleaning can meet the
test of public credibility. That is not the fault of either of these
men; it is the natural consequence of the character of the
administration's self-investigation to date.
The clear solution, forcefully advanced by the prestigious New
York City Bar Association, members of Congress and others, is
for the criminal aspects of these cases to be put under the
direction of a special prosecutor.
Mr. Nixon left open in his speech last night the possibility that
something of this nature -- a special "supervisory" prosecutor --
may be created by Mr. Richardson. To his credit, he has finally
accepted ultimate, personal responsibility for the activities of
his subordinates and acknowledged the crisis in public
confidence that lies at the heart of what we have come to call
Watergate.
In what could not have been a particularly easy gesture for him
to make, he also acknowledged the role of the press as well as
the courts in rooting out information his own investigators had
sought to suppress. What remains to be seen -- the unfinished
business, as it were -- is, first of all, the scope and integrity of
the investigatory process which he has set in motion. But the
remaking of the Nixon presidency will also depend on his
willingness and capacity to bring not just new men, or even new
approaches, but a whole new environment to the executive
branch of the government.

5. © Copyright 1973 The Washington Post Co.
Back to the Top
Main
|
Chronology
|
The Players
|
The Reforms
|
Deep Throat
The Post and Watergate
|
Special Guests
Article 2
In Defense of Richard Nixon
By
Dean Burch
, May 14, 1974
The Chicago Tribune, a long-time supporter of Richard Nixon,
called for Nixon's resignation last week after the release of the
White House transcripts. After the Tribune's editorial appeared,
Dean Burch, a special assistant to the president, sent the
following statement to the Tribune's editors.
The Chicago Tribune's editorial calling for the president to

6. leave office is a most regrettable result of the Watergate affair.
It is regrettable, in major part, because it comes from a
newspaper respected by the nation and by its readers--among
them, Richard M. Nixon. It was clearly a "painful decision" for
the Tribune's editors, most of whom know the president
personally.
There can be no argument with the Tribune's right to its
conclusions--but there is wide berth to contest the Tribune's
reasoning in arriving at these conclusions.
The Tribune says the Richard Nixon revealed in the transcripts
is not the man they believed him to be. They maintain the
newly-emerged "private Nixon" of the Watergate discussions is
somehow less of a man than the "public Nixon," the leader of a
great American nation.
Here, I must differ forcefully. What emerges from these
transcripts is a president searching diligently for the truth in
Watergate--attempting to balance the enduring interests of the
Republic, the commands of the law, and the lives and
reputations of his friends and loyal deputies.
Here was a president faced with getting to the bottom of an
emerging scandal that he realized might shake the foundations
of the Republic. Yet, on the other hand, he was faced with
preserving the presidency and, indeed, the nation itself.
But the key question remains: Did Richard Nixon do wrong?
The transcripts--read with an open mind and a practical
knowledge of decision-making at the highest levels of the
private sector of government--make the case for the President's
actions. What Richard Nixon did was right. Not simply and
unequivocally right, perhaps, but right in context and right on

7. balance.
The president responded to emerging internal crisis in the
manner of any man at the pinnacle of leadership.
What emerges from the transcript is life as it is. It is life in
government and politics, life in industry and business--and, yes,
life in the editorial offices of every newspaper. It is how things
actually are, warts and all.
Of course, the reality of the transcripts grates against the
revered American ideal of the presidency. The salty language,
the exploration of alternatives that took place in the Oval Office
of the White House may be shocking to some but certainly not
to those who have known the men who have occupied the office
of President.
The Chicago Tribune editors know well that every presidential
word and phrase is not to be etched in marble. It is not the case
at the White House, nor in the corporate suites of Manhattan,
nor even in the editorial offices on Michigan Avenue.
The president lives in the real world of tough, practical
decisions that affect the future of every American--the survival
of a nation, the existence of life on this planet.
The president is a man chosen by his fellow citizens from their
own ranks. He is the electoral survivor of a process unique and
uniquely successful among world governments--a process
designed to place at the head of this great nation a man of the
people--one who knows and shares everyday problems of all
Americans, yet has the qualities of leadership to meet the
complex challenges of world problems.
President Nixon is such a man. Regrettably, the Chicago
Tribune's editorial decision is based on about 33 hours of

8. conversation, part of an estimated 15,000 hours of presidential
deliberation on foreign and domestic policy as well as hundreds
of other topics affecting the lives of Americans.
I wonder if the Chicago Tribune would be so ready to desert an
old friend if it could also read transcripts of conversations
involving:
1 --Ending with honor U.S. involvement in a war that had
plagued this country for a decade.
2 --Bringing home our fighting men and our prisoners of war
from Southeast Asia againt incessant pressure simply to bug
out.
3 --Building peace in a world that for generations has known
little peace.
4 --Directing negotiations for peace in the Middle East, for
centuries a cockpit of conflict.
5 --Establishing a new candor in relations with the Soviet
Union, whose leaders vowed to bury us, and opening dialogue
with China, whose millions posed a growing threat to world
peace.
6 --Returning government to the people--letting those who pay
the taxes decide where the tax dollar will be spent.
The man who accomplished these things and much more is a
great leader, a moral man, and a courageous American
president.
Like all great presidents, he is not perfect. But he is not thus to
be impeached. He is determined to pursue the policies that have
changed the face of the world dramatically in five short years

9. until the end of his elected term in office.