Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

RminusQ: the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

Nailed it in the boobies.

I hope they don't strain their fapparatus giving themselves the reach around.

RminusQ: Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

Actually, I disagree. We had the wiretapping scandal and the prisoner abuse scandal and any number of other things that I consider more shocking than Watergate and they were all pretty thoroughly covered as only a 24 hour news cycle can do them.

The real question is "if we'd uncovered Watergate today, would it matter?" and that answer, sadly, appears to be no.

Shiat. They can't even uncover Obama's certificate of live birth.

*Runs like hell*

weezbo: Actually, I disagree. We had the wiretapping scandal and the prisoner abuse scandal and any number of other things that I consider more shocking than Watergate and they were all pretty thoroughly covered as only a 24 hour news cycle can do them.

Why is that shocking?

You can't just blame bush. Blame everyone that vote for the Patriot Act.

The Prisoner scandal stuff?

Seriously? I guarantee you less than 10% of the population give a shiat. Their point of view (as well as mine's) is that holding 1 silent prisoner will cost you countless lives, if that prisoner knows something but isn't compelled to share.

I can think of things that Far surpass Watergate, like how they sold the Invasion of Iraq.

In the end it's all relative, I guess. Each generation has their own scandal. And keep in mind, what was a scandal 30 years ago is commonplace now... Think Larry Flint.

slobarnuts: Why is that shocking?

How about "egregious"? Would that be a better word?

weezbo: RminusQ: Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

Actually, I disagree. We had the wiretapping scandal and the prisoner abuse scandal and any number of other things that I consider more shocking than Watergate and they were all pretty thoroughly covered as only a 24 hour news cycle can do them.

I'll take the question directly. Would we (as in The Washington Post) uncover Watergate. And no, they wouldn't. Nor would CNN. Maybe Rachel or Keith (he spent a month or so biatching about the 2004 Ohio recount). But more likely, AmericaBlog or FireDogLake or Talking Points Memo would. And if it was a Democratic scandal of that significance, it'd be people like LittleGreenFootballs or some other site with WordsSmushedTogether.

weezbo: How about "egregious"? Would that be a better word?

possibly.

weezbo: RminusQ: Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

Actually, I disagree. We had the wiretapping scandal and the prisoner abuse scandal and any number of other things that I consider more shocking than Watergate and they were all pretty thoroughly covered as only a 24 hour news cycle can do them.

The real question is "if we'd uncovered Watergate today, would it matter?" and that answer, sadly, appears to be no.

That right there is one reason why our modern-day Watergates are no big deal.

Follow the money.

Yes, things far worse than Watergate are being uncovered with startling frequency.

Sadly though, nothing is being done.

Who is "we"?

Sun God: Who is "we"?

Not too familiar with Woodward and Bernstein, huh?

RminusQ: Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

Well, you took my reason for coming to the thread.

In fact, it'd probably be easier to uncover watergate today--what with the public today already not trusting their government from the outset.

But would we? Hell no. Though the media would hurumph about it a lot.

Because if the President does it, it's not illegal.

/Now shush - American Idol is on, and I Tivo'd Survivor and Lost

RminusQ: Given the last 6 or so years, the question is more "Would we uncover Watergate today?"

And sadly, the answer is no.

I agree.

News organizations are now nothing more than a part of the entertainment business. Unless there is sex directly involved in the story, it gets a passing mention on the news, at best.

Mad Canadian: Because if the President does it, it's not illegal.

/Now shush - American Idol is on, and I Tivo'd Survivor and Lost

I love American Idol! Wait, what are we talking about? I forgot. Oh well, it probably wasn't as important as American Idol! American Idol? I love American Idol!

Watergate was important only because it was a crime against those that old hold power.

Those bastards in Washington and the press don't give a shiat about crimes against the masses.

IMHO, weezbo is on the right track. Watergate today would definitely be uncovered. Probably not by the mainstream media, since the AP/Washington Post/NYT/etc have about 25 actual reporters between them-the rest of the staff surfs the net and looks for interesting blogs.

More likely, though is that Watergate would get its 24 hours of fame and then disappear when the next big "scandal" is uncovered- like how the Secretary of State is an unconstitutional appointment, or the President is a closet muslim-or any other such drivel.

Also, I just don't believe that the typical American has the curiosity and patience to go through a Watergate scandal. Unless it involves OJ Simpson, no news outlet (not even CSPAN) is going to devote the amount of time it takes to get to the bottom of a Watergate. Remember it took zeveral years for the scandal to finally mature- in the meantime there were millions of column inches in newspapers and thousands of hours of TV coverage on the major networks.

Since the major networks just don't have the mindshare they used to, and not many Americans read 2 page newspaper articles anymore, I do not see any way that this scandal could stay relevant long enough to get to the Office of the President. As a nation, we'd switch the channel before Alexander Butterfield ever got to the microphone.

Hell, how many Americans could name the man who just burned investors for half a trillion dollars? Within 1 month, no one will even remember that it happened.

A Watergate scandal today would not have nearly the same impact. Back in 1973, there was no Fox News to carry the message of the Republican party. There was no Hate Radio to mollify the minions of the Right.

Getting the Watergate story out today would be a daunting proposition.

GoDeep: Shiat. They can't even uncover Obama's certificate of live birth.

*Runs like hell*

Stand by....I got an email from the Prince of Nigeria offering to send me a copy and wire transfer $50,000 US dollars to my account if I will mail him a check for $5,000 tomorrow. I'm totally gonna do it and pwn you doubters.

Karl Rove's playbook makes Watergate look like child's play. But people have become so desensitized to government corruption and dirty tricks it hardly has an impact.

there would be no impeachment that's for sure. not enough republicans would put the constitution before party.

Obviously, the tubes have made passing around information a lot easier to accomplish. All it would take is one Mark Felt getting ahold of someone like Kos.

But see, here's the deal: The "bad guys" know they can't keep anything under wraps anymore. That's 20th century. Now, you just wait until the story breaks, and then you flood the web with piles of disinformation. Have your talking points ready, repeat them until they "become the truth", and by this time next week, when someone comes in and posts "So what was the deal with that break-in at the Watergate?", there would immediately be a slew of graphics posted:

Maybe if there were 3 networks with 38 audience shares reporting 30 minutes of national news a night, leading off with "Five Men Working for the President"

Much less information in the early 70s. Fewer outlets; no web, no cable news, very little local media to speak of.

Anchormen leading off with News about the President was a big big deal. And Nixon vs the media was pretty legendary by 1973, it had been brewing for at least 15, if not 20 years.

// None of this excuses the modern media's complicity in the run up to starting the Iraq war.

in the past 8 years we've uncovered crimes equatable to or greater than Watergate... The question is not whether we could uncover it, but would anybody care.

As long as it still involved Republicans.

slobarnuts: The Prisoner scandal stuff?

Seriously? I guarantee you less than 10% of the population give a shiat. Their point of view (as well as mine's) is that holding 1 silent prisoner will cost you countless lives, if that prisoner knows something but isn't compelled to share.

If you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear.

Mad Canadian: Because if the President does it, it's not illegal.

Only if the President is a Republican.

If the got their tongue outta Obama's ass for five seconds they could.

I know that we never could have won WW2. A month or two into it, our media would be calling the troops baby killers.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Mad Canadian: Because if the President does it, it's not illegal.

Only if the President is a Republican.

Good rule of thumb for party scandals:

Democrat: Local or petty corruption, embarrassing relatives, occasional Oval Office blowjob.

Republican: Billion dollar bailouts needed for banks/corporations, trillions added to national debt, selling weapons to terrorists then fighting those terrorists, Bill of Rights pissed on and US Constitution called a "goddammed piece of paper". Oh, and family value/hidden buttsecks scandals.

shirtsbyeric: If the got their tongue outta Obama's ass for five seconds they could.

He's not even President yet, you feeble retard.

Are you one of the madcap Republicans who hopes the President of the USA is a huge failure and brings on terrible times, so you can boast you were right?

Sadly people like Fitzpatrick will get well deserved promotions and will no longer be in the trenches where they belong. The guy is a couple of busts from beating Elliot Ness.

Confabulat: shirtsbyeric: If the got their tongue outta Obama's ass for five seconds they could.

He's not even President yet, you feeble retard.

Are you one of the madcap Republicans who hopes the President of the USA is a huge failure and brings on terrible times, so you can boast you were right?

I'm sure he does whatever seems popular among the freepers, it's the only way he can get the bigger kids to let him play with them.

Nemo's Brother: I know that we never could have won WW2. A month or two into it, our media would be calling the troops baby killers.

What the fark? This has no basis in reality. Please review this site and discuss it with your doctor of choice. http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/paranoia.html

shirtsbyeric: If the got their tongue outta Obama's ass for five seconds they could.

slobarnuts: weezbo: Actually, I disagree. We had the wiretapping scandal and the prisoner abuse scandal and any number of other things that I consider more shocking than Watergate and they were all pretty thoroughly covered as only a 24 hour news cycle can do them.

Why is that shocking?

You can't just blame bush. Blame everyone that vote for the Patriot Act.

The Prisoner scandal stuff?

Seriously? I guarantee you less than 10% of the population give a shiat. Their point of view (as well as mine's) is that holding 1 silent prisoner will cost you countless lives, if that prisoner knows something but isn't compelled to share.

I can think of things that Far surpass Watergate, like how they sold the Invasion of Iraq.


I think you'll find that more like 25% of Americans are OK with abusing prisoners for any reason. The way they sold the Iraqi war is also worse than Watergate, as is the warrantless wiretapping program.

I do think it's becoming more difficult to cover up things like Watergate. That being said I think we're not going to know all the terrible things that were happening in this administration for years.

Uncover? Yes.

Get anything done after uncovering it? Not at all. The worst thing that could possibly be someone resigning to spend more time with their family, after seeing a slight impact on polls.

Who friggin cares?

It was a nothing B&E......way worse things have happened since.


/it did give us the term "_________gate", and for that we can be thankful.

mr_a: IMHO, weezbo is on the right track. Watergate today would definitely be uncovered. Probably not by the mainstream media, since the AP/Washington Post/NYT/etc have about 25 actual reporters between them-the rest of the staff surfs the net and looks for interesting blogs.

More likely, though is that Watergate would get its 24 hours of fame and then disappear when the next big "scandal" is uncovered- like how the Secretary of State is an unconstitutional appointment, or the President is a closet muslim-or any other such drivel.

Also, I just don't believe that the typical American has the curiosity and patience to go through a Watergate scandal. Unless it involves OJ Simpson, no news outlet (not even CSPAN) is going to devote the amount of time it takes to get to the bottom of a Watergate. Remember it took zeveral years for the scandal to finally mature- in the meantime there were millions of column inches in newspapers and thousands of hours of TV coverage on the major networks.

Since the major networks just don't have the mindshare they used to, and not many Americans read 2 page newspaper articles anymore, I do not see any way that this scandal could stay relevant long enough to get to the Office of the President. As a nation, we'd switch the channel before Alexander Butterfield ever got to the microphone.

Hell, how many Americans could name the man who just burned investors for half a trillion dollars? Within 1 month, no one will even remember that it happened.

Well put.

Phil Herup: Who friggin cares?

It was a nothing B&E......way worse things have happened since.


/it did give us the term "_________gate", and for that we can be thankful.

Too obvious. 0/10.

Yes, but the democrats would be too much of pussies to prosecute. With a republican or democrat in office.

I mean, look how many illegal things Bush has done... and nothing.

Cyborg77: Karl Rove's playbook makes Watergate look like child's play. But people have become so desensitized to government corruption and dirty tricks it hardly has an impact.

These Democrats agree with the dirty tricks...long before Karl Rove arrived on the scene. As a matter of fact, he took their playbook and turned it back on them.









/Take your party politics and shove it up your a$$.
//Both sides are corrupt as hell.

Short answer... no.

michaeld5:
//Both sides are corrupt as hell.


Yeah...but that Begala pic is awesome. What a super-douche he is.

I think we'd uncover it, but it would largely go nowhere with 40% of the country rationalizing such behavior.

Investigative journalism costs money. It's far cheaper for Networks and News Agencies to read press releases and AP wire stories.