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 .