five days later, five weeks later, woodward and bernstein would interview them. they'd be told the same thing. so they were actually writing about the fbi investigation that was through, but the fbi wasn't publishing its results, so it looked like the "washington post" was ahead of the fbi when all it was was reporting some of despite what i'm saying, i don't think it's denigrating the "post" to show that it was that. it didn't like to see the results of its investigation in the newspaper. but it was the newspaper's job before the election as possible. that's no small accomplishment, and i'm -- i'll be the first in line to recognize woodward and

bernstein's accomplishment. regardless of whether felt leaked for self-serving reasons or the most principled one. my problem really is not the coverage in the summer and fall of 1972. it's in the book about the coverage because the book is where the fairytale starts. now i actually didn't get a chance to do this before completing my book, but i was recently in los angeles and went through the papers of alan pachula, director of the film "all the president's men." he wanted to make a film that was very true to life. so he actually interviewed all the editors at the "post," woodward and bernstein. and he was told a lot of interesting things because this was before the movie came out. of course, so everything wasn't so frozen in the celebratory stories. and i realized suddenly that what really explains "all the

president's men" is something that was called at the time the new journalism. it was a fad then or at least very popular way of writing books. and one of the first books actually to be considered in the new journalism vein was "in cold blood." about the murder of a family. and it was the application of novelistic techniques to books that were purportedly nonfiction, and you know, depending on who was doing the writing, there was a little more fiction, and a little less nonfiction. and this explains a lot to my mind about the nature of all of -- of "all of the president's men. " what woodward and bernstein did, this technique gave them a lot of literary license. they could misrepresent felt because the emphasis in the new journal simple on your

subjective view. you didn't have to go out and interview people and establish what felt's motive really was. all you had to do was report what it seemed to be according to how you saw it, and that's what woodward did. they presented a rose-colored account of what transpired inside the newsroom of the "washington post" also. they left out inconvenient facts, for example, the fact that the law firm for the "washington post" which was also the law firm for the dnc was leaking, as then-senator robert dole charged, information to the "washington post." this was something that was very vigorously denied. and if you read bradley's memoir, he says, we never got any information from the willia williams-connelly law firm. but if you look at the papers, they did get information from the law firm. now all these techniques were things they did not do when they were writing straight news

stories, but they did do when they were writing a book about how they uncovered watergate or how they covered watergate because i would resist the sense -- the notion that they really uncovered watergate. now this particular slide i put in because on the right you have woodward's typewritten notes from one of his meetings with felt. and one of the things that struck me is when i compared these notes with the account of this meeting in "all the president's men." and in these notes you can't see them too well, but there are quotes around particular phrases like switchblade menmentality, colorful things. in the book, however, the whole thing is a quote. everything that felt said is quoted. sentences are moved around. sometimes the meaning of what

felt said is subtly changed. in the book, there are sentences that are direct quotes of thought are not at all in the notes whatsoever. and this is what i mean by literary license. and that the book "all the president's men" is sort of a legend. a fanciful telling of what actually occurred. now what does this all really mean when you come right down to it? what's the importance of understanding felt's motive? well, on one hand, just understanding why felt leaked fills a void in the very middle of the story. what the late christopher hitchins called, right three my mind, the single most successful use of the media by a unanimous, unelected agenda of his own. now we understand that agenda. it had nothing to do with richard nixon's violations of

the law. richard nixon was supposed to be felt's ticket to being director, and he certainly didn't want to elect george mcgovern. but let me also stress that merely by understanding what felt was up to doesn't exonerate nixon or exculpate what he did or corruptions of power. but telling this story tells an important story about the media's full role. once we have this fairytale dissipate, we can really understand the importance of the role of the media played in 1972. and make no mistake, i do believe it played an important role, just not the exaggerated view that's common. the press, the attention of the press was very critical because once you listened to presidential recordings, you

immediately realize that what was -- especially in those days when the media was different than it is now, what was on the front page of the "washington post," "the new york times" often drove the agenda that they in the white house, they had to react to it or say something. so the fact that the "post" was just covering watergate was important. it no doubt influenced the judge who was trying the case. he supposedly said that to bob woodward, that he was disturbed by the case that was presented in this courtroom, and he meted out heavy sentences as a result. it probably influenced the senate to conduct an investigation, although of course the senate was dominated by democrats. and they might have well conducted an investigation even if there had been less press coverage. but the fact is since the "post" raised a lot of unanswered questions, it undoubtedly encouraged the senators -- i mean, there's an old saying in

washington -- the most dangerous place is between the camera and a senator. and probably the most important thing is the coverage protected the prosecutors as they were investigating the case against the burglars. it meant that when they wanted to depose john mitchell, a former attorney general and the former chairman of the committee to re-elect the president, there was never any question about whether they could do that. so it insulated the prosecutors from any political influence. and that was a very important role. but who really cracked the cover-up? it wasn't the "washington post." i can assure you that there's no story in the post that accurately describes the reasons for the break-in before 1973 or exactly how it happened. and there's certainly no story about the cover-up. and of course the cliche about

watergate always was the cover-up was worse than the crime. it was the legal process really that brought watergate to the culmination that we all know. but also burt of the chief prosecutor. and as i said, the press coverage insulated him from any political pressures being exerted on his investigation. hugh sloan was one of those who worked for the committee to re-elect the president, who was telling the truth to the fbi and to prosecutors. he was also telling the same truth to woodward and bernstein insofar as he knew it. so -- and there were others like him. particularly a bookkeeper named judith hoback, who was interviewed by the fbi six times, all times away from lawyers for the rnc or the committee to re-elect. so she was telling the fbi the truth. and it was this testimony that

allowed earl silbert in 1973 to win a verdict of not guilty against all five burglars and two men, e. howard hunt and gordon liddy. now james mccord facing a stiff sentence handed down by the judge was the furstenberg lar to crack. he wrote a letter to the judge saying that perjury had occurred during the trial and that there was a cover-up of the parties that were really responsible. and finally and most oddly, when l. patrick gray against all the odds was nominated to be the permanent director of the fbi, at his confirmation hearing, he was completely oblivious to the fact that there had been a cover-up. and every day at his confirmation hearings, he made statement that's undercut the administration's claims about what watergate was all about.

it was the combination of gray's testimony, mccord's letter which was brought about by his heavy sentence. and that's what finally got john dean and jeb mcgruder to run to the prosecutors and tell the whole truth. and that's when the whole thing came apart. of course, there were many, many more months of fights over presidential recordings to show nixon's culpability. but essentially when the federal prosecutors handed over the case to a special watergate prosecutor in 1973, the whole thing was laid out for them. the last lesson perhaps that i found in my book was that it's -- it's a cautionary tale about the role of the media. because despite the revolution in how the news is reported and produced and consumed, the

not that much changed. and reporters always have to be aware of the reasons their sources are leaking. it doesn't mean you don't use the information if you can corroborate it. but you always have to be careful about being used. if not you're subject to manipulation. we saw this with the way the press covered the supposed existence of weapons of mass destructions in iraq. finally, like the film "the man who shot liberty valence," the truth is a lot more complicated than the fairytale. the package of watergate that woodward and bernstein and the "washington post" liked to present is a lot more untidy once we understand why mark felt was doing what he did. in my mind, it makes it more interesting, more human, and certainly more real.

thank you for your attention. [ applause ] >> thanks, max. please come to the microphones up here for some questions. we have about ten minutes for that. and afterward, max will be signing copies of his peculiar, "leak," right outside here. >> thank you. thank you very much. a question i have is your comment or impressions of journalism today in that with the internet we see journalists writing stuff that are very biased, very untrue. they're retracting things,

they're leaving things out of interviews, as we saw with the clemens interview. your comment about journalism today and the lack of thoroughness. >> well, that's a very difficult question. i mean, there are a lot of people now who are presented as journalists who aren't formally working for journalist organizations. but if you can have a web site, you can theoretically call yourself a journalist. i think we're really in unchartered territory, and i don't know how it's going to shake out. i'm very worried, you know, about the existence of newspapers, of the threatened -- the threatened existence. i mean, in the towns i've traveled through -- even in my hometown of los angeles, the newspaper is a shadow of what it was. who's going to cover the city? and in a town like new orleans which recently lost its paper,

that's a town with its notorious for corruption, and the newspaper was one of the only bu bu bullwarks against that. it remains to be seen what's to happen. yes? >> a specific question -- were you able to speak with woodward or bernstein? did they cooperate with you on this book? and more broadly, who did cooperate and more noticeably who would not cooperate with you? >> that's a very good question wlompt d. who did cooperate with me? one of the best people i interviewed was angelo lanho, case agent for the watergate investigation. and he was -- has a burning desire to get the story out because he was personally offended to see the results of his investigation in the

"washington post." and the fact that it was done by an executive several levels above him made it all the angrier. and he knows to the marrow of his bones that he conducted a thorough, exhaustive -- there was no lead he didn't follow. the fact that the fbi didn't crack the cover-up, i mean, that's not the fbi's job. that's the job of the legal process. so he was very upset with how watergate had been depicted in "all the president's men." another good interview was jack mcdermott. the special agent in charge of the washington field office, and he, too -- in that sense, lanho's boss. and he, too, was very upset that felt was seen as a hero. in fact, he told me and shared with me a letter that he had written in 2005 when felt came forward. he had written it to the society of former fbi agents because he

felt as a special agent in charge of the washington office he had a duty to inform his colleagues of what really happened. and that felt was not a hero. and that society wouldn't publish his letter in their newsletter. and the reason was that he was given was we don't speak ill of our former fbi officials, you know, regardless of what they did. this is not the forum for that. and mcdermott said to me, you know, it's true that it's very hard to admit for the -- for the fbi to admit that it had people like mark felt, but he thinks that if the fbi doesn't speak up, why are americans going to think he was anything but a hero? as for woodward and bernstein, i did talk to woodward before i turned my book in. and i actually had very few questions for him because his book, "the secret man," on felt, was a long and extensive

interview. it was probably the most difficult interview i've ever conducted. you know, he's an iconic figure. he's not an easy interview. he's prone to turning around your questions and asking you questions. [ laughter ] >> i'll let it rest there. [ laughter ] >> i had a question. welcome to kansas city, by the way. and speaking of kansas city, i know patrick gray and everyone coming, mr. felt, was there any connection between clarence m. kelly and gray and felt? >> oh, absolutely. what happened is that when felt left the fbi and william ruckleshouse was the acting director, they had an understanding -- if you resign, i'll write you a very flowery resignation letter, and you'll write a very regretful letter for leaving the fbi, and we'll let matters rest there. but ruckleshouse believed he had

leaked information. when kelly came in, what happened is the fbi found out that a whole bag full of documents had been given to a reporter named john krudsen. and because felt was already suspected of being a leaker, he became the number-one suspect. now as it happened, he hadn't leaked the documents to krudsen. that had been ruckleshouse. but felt was the number-one suspect. and because these were documents, they felt -- they believed they could investigate it. see, it's very hard to investigate an oral leak because there's, you know, really no proof of it. but if you give documents to a reporter, that's something else. so when kelly, clarence kelly became the fbi director and they became aware that all these documents had been made available, he initiated an investigation. now as it turned out, kelly and felt were old friends. they had been both special agents in charge at the same time, and when kelly left the

fbi, felt actually because of his kansas city connections had gotten clarence kelly the job as chief of police in kansas city. so they went way, way back. and felt was just livid, of course, to becourse, to be -- that he was a subject in an investigation. the hard thing about the investigation, they were investigating for two things, "deep throat," which had come out at that time, and john kritzer. did you ever see john felt? and she said no. did you ever see john krutzer in his office? no, but bob used to call here all the time.

[ laughter ] >> i have a question about president nixon knowing that felt was a leaker. did nixon know that he was a leaker or suspect, and if he knew, who told him? who was his deep throat, and, again, why did he not fire mark felt? >> excellent questions. those are the questions that started me off. first of all, i tried very hard to pin this down, but all we really know, based on the conversation between haldeman and nixon, and haldeman said we learned by the lawyer at the offending publication that mark felt is the source of the leaks. we don't really know if that offending publication is the "washington post" or time magazine. there is reason to believe it's time rather than the "washington post." and i tried to establish who the lawyer might have been. at one point i thought maybe i knew who it was, and haldeman's

explanation is this lawyer has been in the government, and despite being the counsel to the offending publication, he was very upset that all these leaks about an ongoing fbi investigation were a ppearing i the press. that's why peterson -- i could never tell whether peterson was told with the knowledge he would tell john dean or whether peterson had just been told because he was in the justice department. in any case, peterson did tell john dean. john dean did tell haldeman, nixon's chief of staff, and that's how nixon found out. now, the reason they didn't fire felt right away is because felt, they believe, knew too much. this is just before the election. and even after the election, watergate isn't going away, and they're worried that if felt were, let's say, transferred to

butte, montana, which is hoover's favorite tactic, know that he might spill his guts on national television. so they try and tell pat gray he's not to be trusted. in fact, when nixon decides against all the odds to appoint pat gray as the permanent director, he says the first thing i want you to do is put mark felt on a lie detector, and if he fails, i want him fired. yes? >> you said about a third of the things mark told bernstein were incorrect? can you give an example, and did that have an effect on the coverage? >> at one point felt alleged that the reason john mitchell had resigned from the committee to reelect the president is because each of the top aides in the nixon white house, haldeman, ehrlichman, john mitchell, were

having to contribute their own personal funds to the kitty to pay off the burglars to keep them quiet. this was completely untrue. i mean, they were raising money privately, hush money to keep the burglars private, but it wasn't coming from the personal bank account of haldeman, ehrlichman and mitchell. it's completely without foundation. this is one of the questions i had for woodward, what did he think about this, and then this is one of the cases where he turned the question around to me. well, did you find any evidence of that? no, i didn't, and nobody else did, not the watergate special prosecutor, not the senate committee, not the impeachment committee, it was just a falsehood. because felt really didn't care -- he really did have contempt to the media. all that mattered to him was there were stories, true or not, that would appear in the press and upset the white house.

this story appeared if woodward was sloppy enough to write it up if he found confirmation, and the white house would know it wasn't true, but it would affect them. at least for one cycle, it would be something they would have to respond to. and felt was playing a very tricky game here, but the fact that watergate wasn't an election issue meant he could do this with relative impunity because it wasn't costing richard nixon anything, it was just upsetting him. >> i'm interested in how mark felt was able to keep his identity from the press. there were countless stories about it and the press was looking into it over years, and

with all the notoriety of people interested in it, how was he able to keep that out of the press? >> that's a very good question. one of the things that kind of astounded me when i really came to understand it was one of the myths about woodward and bernstein was that you practically had to rip out their fing fingernails before they would identify their sources. but the fact is, they originally signed a book to write about the watergate scandal. they had a story they couldn't tell in the newspaper. they got a contract in the fall of '72. they start writing in early 1973. the scandal, every day you open the newspaper, gets bigger and bigger and bigger. how do you write a story that isn't ending but only getting bigger by the end of the day? by this time, robert redford got interested in their story, and

there was a very fortuitous and meaningful meeting between redford and woodward and bernste bernstein, and he said the only reason i'm interested in the story is you guys, how you got the story. i don't want a movie about watergate, i want a story about you guys, you reporters. then the whole axis of what became "all the president's men" changed from being about watergate to being about them. and so how do you write a story about yourselves and how you've uncovered the story? well, you have to talk about your sources. so they went back to a lot of their sources, people like hugh sloan, the treasurer. he said, i have no objection to you using what i told you when i told you it. due to the holdback, they didn't use her name, though they did describe her. when mark felt was asked by woodward to be identified in all

of it, he said, hell, no. we had a deep background arrangement. i was not to be quoted, my exist e existence was not to be acknowledged to anyone. nevertheless, when they wrote "all the president's men", they violated every one of those stipulations except one or two. they didn't say exactly where felt worked in the executive branch, and they didn't give his name. but people who were very sharp observers of the washington scene, in particular, there was an editor named frank waltrip. he had been an editor in the late '20s. at that time the washington herald had been bought out by the "washington post." and waltrip, immediately when "deep throat" came out in the spring of '74, he immediately said, it's mark felt. waltrip had great sources in the fbi, and felt was the number one

suspect from the get-go. and, of course, he denied it. he said it was not i, i would never do such a thing. and he was actually one of the first to put forward that he thinks -- in fact, "deep throat" is a composite character. it didn't really exist as a single individual which woodward found it a very clever piece of information. as time goes on, the speculation gets more and more broke. i mean, pat gray was identified as deep throat in the cbs special, alexander hague. just everybody under the sun. but, of course, when it came down to it, it was felt. now, i believe he didn't come forward voluntarily, and it was only because he was aging, and when you become that old, you lose some of your inhibitions. i don't think if he retained all of his marbles to the end of his life that he would ever want to to be known