which values the spectrum. the discussion needed to turn into a business decision. we are excited about those options. i am certain our carriers will come to them with excitement and it will be a win-win situation for everyone. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern .n "communicators" on c-span2 >> former "washington post" executive director there ben bradlee oversaw the paper's coverage of the watergate scandal. 93died tuesday at the age of year he led the post as executive editor from 1965 to 1991 and suffered in recent years from dementia. in an april 2011 interview, he and washington post journalist bob woodward recounted the

watergate scandal and followed, ford'sng president pardon of richard nixon. the detailed how the story of folded and reflected on the role of the anonymous source known as deep throat. this program is just under two hours. mr. woodwarde and were visiting with our other guests in the overthrow -- overflow area. my name is timothy naftali, director of the nixon presidential library and museum. i want to welcome all of you tonight. [applause] thank you. and now please join me and welcoming mr. ben bradlee and mr. bob woodward. [applause]

[cheers and applause] right over there. right there. thank you. we are going to have a conversation tonight, but before i first of all thought i would introduce people who do not need an introduction. i will tell you something about them you might not know. he doeslee, although not look it, is a world war ii veteran. he serves -- [applause] >> atta boy. theaterrved in pacific

on the uss essex. >> philip. >> it is important to keep in mind he was in the navy. that will matter in a moment. covered the 1960 campaign. he worked for "newsweek" and got to know a young senator named john f. kennedy. he produced one of the more interesting books about president kennedy called "conversations with kennedy." he then found his way to the "washington post." he found himself in a position of authority and importance during two key moments in the history of the post, both of which we will talk about tonight good one, of course, the pentagon papers story, and the other is watergate. we're truly, truly fortunate to have such a pioneer, legendary figure of american journalism tonight. [applause] >> oh, oh.

[applause] >> the man next to him worked for a small newspaper in maryland. after having spent five years in the navy, during part of the time he was in a noncombat role, but he had opposed during vietnam -- he had a post during the bob woodward has written 16 books, and you have made 12 of them "new york times" number one best sellers. >> look at that. [applause] bob -- i interviewed both of these children for the library, and bob woodward was very keen to come and visit, and i cannot tell you how delighted i am to see how keen you all are to see him and mr. bradlee. [applause]

ben, it is june 1972 and you have got these two young guys covering a crime story. how is it that the closed foot mr. bernstein and missed word word word -- mr. woodward were together to cover a break-in? >> well, it was a total accident. [laughter] a. b, the assignment was not made by me because i was not working that day. that was a saturday. i mean, i cannot take credit -- i hope i get enough credit for the evening is out, but -- [laughter] when the deputy managing editor -- not even that, it was the , and it fourth deputy

came time to assign the story on a saturday. i was not working. >> it was one of the greatest in june ever in washington, d.c. you were not working. most of the people who mattered were not working. >> i am not apologizing -- [laughter] i am not apologizing here. [laughter] i hope to get a lot of credit for the night is through, but i do not want any credit for that. >> but the city editor looked around and there was this said, it islory and so nice out, who would be dumb enough to come to work on a day like this? [laughter] sprung toy, my name his mind. and i got called into a >> why were you dumb enough to come to work that day? >> well, because -- money. [laughter] no. .uriosity as we now look back on it, it

was truly the golden age of newspaper. legenddlee was already a , and you wanted to work for him. it was an atmosphere in which there were no stops. it was a sense of you can go and do anything. the day i started working for the "washington post" this editor took me out to lunch and said you have an unlimited expense account. you can take anyone out and go to the jockey club every day, but make sure you get good stories. >> we did say that. >> well -- [laughter] >> if we can take it back, ben, when did this story begin to matter for you? you were away and enjoying the day. >> i think it was a saturday.

i have forgotten. but the next day that i came to work, and i was quite well known for working a lot, i saw who had gotten the story. woodward and bernstein, two guys that i did not know very well to we had tried to hire bob once, and we had no place. can you believe that? we sent him out to prince george's county or one of the counties -- >> montgomery county. >> montgomery county, and we said to come back in a year. did to the day, which is not unlike woodward. and we had a slot open at that was kind ofrnstein a different cat altogether. he had worked for the "evening star," the other evening paper

in washington. and we had hired him because he had shown, i thought, a special talent for writing. i was more interested in his writing that his reporting. and we were more interested in this guy's reporting than his writing. not that either was bad at the other. [laughter] they were both good at the other. >> and then we got your attention with the story when we $25,000 check story. here was a check that had been given to the nixon campaign. it had gone to the chief fundraiser. somehow it wound up in the bank account of one of the watergate burglars. it was hard to explain. >> you are always interested in money in these stories, you know, who got the money you are check show up000

in miami bank, deposited by some guy -- what the hell was his name? ford never heard of him who . everything came together, and we had the two right guys. by god, there it was it grew from there. 400 stories in the next two and a half years to that of the lot of stories. and newspapers, we were famous for abandoning stories. no women, no sex, no nothing. they are out of there in three weeks. [laughter] experiencehink your with the pentagon papers publication shaped how you dealt with their story?

it.o question about some of you probably do not know about the pentagon papers. but the pentagon papers was a the "washington .ost" was beaten on the "new york times" had uncovered this grand study on what was going on in the pentagon, and it was a devastating indictment of american government. and we did not have it. but when we got it, we went to work on it. in that formed a confidence ourselves, i think, and especially in katharine graham who was the owner of the post. was actually the owner, but he was a manic state wherend in a he was not often around.

is how we got it. thoughn, you know, even we were second on the story, we did very well. we started breaking stories. >> and the significance was that you were publishing with the government saying do not dare publish in actually going to the supreme court and saying, we, the government, have a claim to should not be public -- >> top-secret, blah, blah, blah. national security is involved. as if some of us did not know a little about national security, having spent four years in the war. i had a lot of top-secret clearances at the time. >> and the supreme court ruled in favor of the press. what they did is said in stone, final ruling, that there is no

prepublication censorship, no ability the government has -- they do not have the power to come in and stop -- >> they cannot tell you to not write something before you do it. they can put you in the slammer afterwards. [laughter] bob, i would like you to take us to the courtroom, recount for us that moment that i think is also captured in the film. what do you here in the courtroom? >> well, what is interesting, on this wonderful saturday, they sent me down to these routine arraignment hearings of the five burglars. these were not your average d.c. burglars. they all had suits. hundred dollar bills in their pocket. very sophisticated electronic equipment. so it was a mystery. in the five guys were paraded in , and the judge starts asking

what they did. and the lead burglar, james mccord, the judge said, speak up, and he went -- [whispers] the judge said, speak up and he finally said -- c ia. now those are electric words. >> whoo. [laughter] and that -- >> and i knew one of the burglars. believe it or not. i knew it. how the hell? an italian geithner >> you never told us. >> oh, i didn't? [laughter] fiorini. how the hell i knew him, i do .ot know

>> you cannot say that. >> so that gave momentum to the story. how is it that the lead burglar who is head of security at the head of security for the nixon reelection committee, was involved in this. wrote subsequent stories on it. you look back and it seems the betrayall is best the is obvious. at that time it was not clear. the big break in the next couple of days was the simple entry in the address books of two of the burglars. there was a real bedrock police reported that got this information from his police sources. >> who seized it from the burglars. >> from the burglars, took everything in their pockets. and it said, howard hunt-w.

house. and of course -- [laughter] >> what do you want? >> bernstein had much more imagination than ip or it he said, howard hunt, w. house. only be -- that could one of two things. [laughter] so he called the whorehouse and i called the white house. [laughter] it was a time when you could get through, and howard hunt got on hunt,one, and i said, mr. how come your name is in the address books of two of these burglars -- we did not call it the watergate in the democratic headquarters then. he paused and said, good god, and he slammed down the phone. [laughter]

"i amwas a certain packing my bags" quality to that. [laughter] your like cia, got attention now on your exhibit here, you see that aldermen and nixon, that day or the next day, are talking about howard hunt. aldermen said he disappeared, we have disappeared him, and we can undisappear him. >> it was your fault. [laughs] did your senior colleagues jealousy asshow any these stories were starting? or did they do the opposite, like, go ahead? >> they ignored the stories for one day or two days.

and as it grew, they started shuffling as only a senior reporter who is being laughed by a junior reporter can shuffle -- who is being lapped by a junior reporter can shuffle. [laughter] i thinkrted telling me, it is about time that they took over the story. i mean, no credit to me, these guys had the goods and they were delivering the goods, and why the hell would i go to some big shot just because he was an or somen vietnam foreign affairs thing? we never gave it a thought. and that was the beginning of it all. back on it,u look it is rather amazing that you on this story --

>> well, i always thought so. [laughter] >> did you let them go with every story that they wanted to go with? did you stop a few stories? did you tell them not to do a few stories? >> the way the system works is that once the first story or the first two stories are in and they hold up and nobody is suing you and nobody is saying, what the hell are you doing, i mean, just let them go. and they knew the story. but they found the check. $25,000, butk for the interesting thing is -- >> but there were times when you would look at the -- we wrote stories on things called typewriters. [laughter]

you remember what those are? paperere would be six ply where you would have the original five copies. >> carbon paper. a yet, so there would be carbon copy, and the other editors would get one. you would look at it. very frequently, you would say, i want to know more about this, hold this story. , and thisld us back is now your chance to apologize. [laughter] [laughs] that may say it, you were a great editor, not just the cause of what you published, but what you did not publish. and you never said we are not going to run this story ever. .ou said i am not yet convinced

we need more information, more sources, more details. so, you know, we would -- [laughter] we would then, you know, kind of curse you and say, you know, that bradlee, he thinks he knows everything. and then we would go to work. and if he sources and information were always willing to say, ok, now the story is ready. of anat limiting role editor, i mean, it is so relevant now in journalism where nobody says no and a sense. everything gets published. anyone can say anything about anyone now. and i look back on it, and i cherish those moments when you said not yet. >> thank you. that is very nice. [applause] tell us a little bit about

the source that most people know about. mark felt,ut when deep throat, becomes important to your reporting. >> who becomes very important in the first days when we had this howard hunt, who was a consultant who worked in the white house. waswe had someone who nixon's special counsel. andconnection between hunt colson was really important. i can have your name in my i amss book, and if arrested for burglary or something, it does not mean you put me up to it. was not mark felt, who identified to anyone at the post at that point, and it turns out he was really the guy getting

all the watergate information from the washington field office. ntsaid, what is this hunb connection, and he said something very important. i was worried -- is this a linkage without substance? , youe said, do not worry cannot say something unkind about howard hunt or check colson that does not have merit. [laughter] and that was very important. because as we now go back and construct the fbi investigation, they had established hunt's role. he was not one of the burglars, but he was outside that night and so forth. he was the operational director of this burglary team. mark felt becomes important right away. >> but you do not tell mr.

-- you just tell him? >> that there is a senior source in the justice department who is verifying details we're getting elsewhere. .> that surprises me about me i mean, i would not -- i had never done it again, but it was so hard to quibble with success. he was right. there was a check. always if there was money involved. [laughter] and the money shows up. and it is what you heard it was going to be and it was where it should be. you know you have got a tiger by the tail. why not leave well enough alone? that is what i said. was itgoing to say, unusual to have a reporter come to you with a major story and say, i cannot tell you the source of the story, but i trust

it? >> well, yes, it was unusual but not unheard of to say that i have got a source. in the beginning, who gives a is sobout who the source long as he is right. got to be right. -- how manynk corrections did we run? we ran one, and in the whole we saidhad some -- and something had happened in front of a grand jury and they had not taken into the grand jury. it was in front of the united states attorney. the substance was right, but technically -- >> but in a story that is moving fast like that, if you had taken me aside, as you know, call me into the office and that i need to know who this source is, of course, i would have told you. >> i know.

>> and this was the dumb luck factor in all of this, we always had multiple sources. we always had something -- you know, as you say, a check or sigrid fund, who controls these disbursements or dirty tricks or sabotage, and getting it from nixon, mostly in the committee or investigators. so there was never a moment where, i guess, you felt, i need to know who -- >> i knew he worked in the justice department, and i knew he was right. right, right, right, right, right. not wrong. you never had to take anything back to it suddenly, i do not know what the heck -- it was after watergate, wasn't it? it was after it. >> after next and. >> somebody said to me, you know, somebody who i could not , and said, do not

you actually know his name? and i said, no, i don't. it occurred to me that that was dumb. [laughter] walked into the and sating park one day down, and we had a little chat and i got his name. at we never used it, but least i had it. and catherine graham, god rest her soul, you know, used to come and say --imes a day what does deep throat say today? but never, you know, did not ask his name. >> and we kept that secret for more than 30 years. >> i did not tell my wife. ha.

[laughter] secret.a >> good decision. [laughter] but isn't it one of the russian the only who says that way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead -- [laughter] and we were all very much alive, but it was an hour interest to keep our word. and as a working reporter of to this day, it helps me immensely when i go talk to people and confidencethis is in . i am not going to say where it came from. there is ah, ok, history of keeping your word on this. this is a serious commitment. >> and catherine graham, with her life on the line, certainly

her business life on the line -- did that. by that today. >> was there a point in the watergate investigation where you got scared? >> it was in the spring of 1973 when mark felt, in laying out, and i think this was somewhat my paranoia, but it was his literal language. highid, the stakes are so that people's lives could be in danger. there is electronic surveillance going on. the entire intelligence community is involved in shenanigans, as we later learned about, which he had some glimpse of his position in the fbi. tell them what happened.

you are asleep. >> sound asleep. morning couldmn woodward calls and says we have got to see you now. i say, all right, and they came out. i had a little house in -- what the hell is the name of it? >> wesley heights. >> wesley heights, yeah. >> we knocked on the door, carl and i, and he comes out in his jammies. [laughter] -- which were not very pretty, by the way. >> and we stand out in the cold and they tell me this story, and i cannot believe it. i mean, it was so hard to believe. woodward said the house is tapped, obviously. which we later tested.

all our houses were tested every two months and they never were as far as we knew. were also telling you what mark felt said, that this , thatis unspooling everyone is involved, that nixon is involved, and it has got a forward momentum to it which you cannot really comprehend. and i remember laying that out to you and you were kind of listening, you know, kind of, should i call the guys in white jackets because we are telling you this on your lawn and it was cold -- >> 3:00 in the morning. unusual about that. >> in the movie version of this, ben inobarts who plays

the movie version, in the end, he says, now, ok, guys, got a lot of work to do. go home and take a bath and get back on the beat, and not much is at stake, just the first amendment and the future of the country. >> [laughs] [laughter] benow, that is not what said. [laughter] that is the hollywood version. that is what the people who made the movie wanted it to be, but it was not. after all of this is told to ben, he turned to us and this is precisely what he said -- what the hell do we do now? [laughter] >> yeah. [applause] >> you love that story, don't

you? >> but i love that story because you said exactly the right thing. we were going into totally uncharted territory. none of us, even you, had experience dealing with something like this. instead of kind of, you know, taking your stick out and showing you are the boss and in charge, you honestly said -- i do not know what to do. and what we did is we kept reporting. we met. we maintained our whole approach . multiple sources. let's make sure -- this is at a time when i was going over to the nixon white house and , we know thatthem this is going to reach many new levels, more tentacles of watergate. and we want to talk to president may than about this. and there now are tapes of nixon

and ziegler and aldermen talking about my request to talk to nixon, which was not necessarily well-received. [laughter] >> that you have got to also newspapers is a very competitive business. and there was no newspaper that had this story, that wrote this story. finally, a cup will months, six wheat -- a couple of months, six was someoneere working for the "new york times" and then someone -- -- l.a. times" >> "l.a. times" had won. but there was not a mass acceptance and the rest of the press. >> it helped with walter cronkite. >> oh, the great white father. [laughter] you will not believe it, but

when he went on television with , he said, isegment cannot get it all in one night. >> 15 minutes and then one was seven or eight minutes. >> they were both supposed to be 15, but after it hit the fan, the -- who the hell was head of cbs? down to six second minutes or seven minutes, but that was enough. and walter cronkite, he really was the great white father at that time. if walter cronkite said it, it was -- [laughter] >> but there is no reason that people would -- what those is, walter cronkite said, and this was right before the night in 72 election, and he said it looks like nixon is going to be reelected, but there were questions about watergate.

and this story was all about our report. it says the "washington post and court says this and the white house denies it. post" sayswashington there are checks and money and sabotage and espionage and so forth. so for cbs and walter cronkite , it was quite something. >> you have to tell the story about your copy machine conversation with carl. it was about at this time. it is something you did not write about in the press. of 1972.s the fall collects i am not making gestures at you. [laughter] >> i know, i know. hit it with your stick. >> not too hard. [laughter] 1972 when the fall of

we had written a lot of these stories, and one of them was john mitchell, the former attorney general, had been in charge of this secret fund that had financed watergate and lots of the other undercover activities. meetinghad said in the before publishing the story that we better be real careful. we are accusing this former chief law enforcement officer of the united states of being a crook. as we were going through this, carl and i and one of our -- in one of our morning sessions in the post, kind of a little corner room where they had the carl cup of coffee, and puts his money in and turns around and said to me, you know, this guy am i mean, nixon is going to be impeached. and i just thought for a moment

and said, i think you are right, but we can never use that word around this newsroom and we can never think in those terms because we have to stick to the story which is what we attempted to do. ,ut that was carl having connecting the dots and realizing that you cannot have ,omebody like john mitchell attorney general, campaign manager, so close to nixon, so deeply involved in this, and that it will not spread. >> ok, you have the election in november 1972. the president is overwhelmingly reelected. do things start to dry up for you? what happened to the story? >> at one point, i think ben give an interview saying he wanted to hold our heads in a bucket of water. >> they did try out.

>> and we did not have stories for a long time. it was agony. bug.at is just a loose [laughter] it. cannot hit >> you know, let me tell this story, because ben has mentioned graham, the publisher and owner and ben's boss. during that time after the election, our story has dried up, the source has dried up, but canhat moment, and ben verify this, most people in the post-newsroom did not believe what we had written. don't you think, ben? they did not think we were right. >> there was a group that it not. >> particularly on the national stage. staff is the -- >> a-team.

>> you thrive to be on the national staff. we later learned one of the secret nixon strategies was to challenge the fcc tv license is that the post company owns. this stock was in the toilet. our journalistic reputation was at least on the rim of the toilet. graham asked me to lunch. this is january 1973 tiered a rumor going to lunch with howard simons, your managing editor, and set down and she started asking me questions about watergate, and it blew my mind how much she knew about the details. she knew henry kissinger well. i mean, at one point she even said, i read something about

watergate in the "chicago tribune." and i remember thinking, what is she reading the damn "chicago tribune "four? no one in chicago does. [laughter] it is even more the case now. [laughter] spooking up all the information. and later described this management style that she had of mind-on, hands-off. did not tell me how to edit. did not tell me or carl how to report. but she was intellectually engaged. active. was totally it was comforting, and it also meant there was more pressure. click stroman motivating. you did not want to let someone like that down. the lunch, shef

asked the killer ceo question, which is, when are we going to find out the whole truth about watergate, and i said, carl and ben and i all felt that because it was a criminal conspiracy, everything was compartmentalized, because the go visitecause you people and they slam doors in our face, they are frightened, that the answer, when are we going to find out the whole truth of watergate is never. i remember looking across that lunch table and she had this pain, wounded look on her face, and she said -- never? don't tell me never. the lunch a motivated employee. [laughter] said, and this is so important, was not a threat, but it was a statement of purpose.

said was use all your resources and we have an obligation to get to the bottom of this story, not just because we are out on a limb on it, but because the implications go this is true, as we believe, and it is proven that something is going on, it is a 10 on the richter scale. andsee it from your chair as a publisher, they say, look, go after it, use everything. we are going to get to the bottom of it. it was incredibly liberating, and someday we're going to put a

plaque in the lobby of the "washington post" and nobody will be able to take it down. it will have "never, don't tell me never." harine graham, january 1973. [applause] >> you have had a few years to think about this. and retrospect, what role the you think karel bernstein and bob woodward -- carl bernstein and bob woodward and the "washington post" conversation had in the outcome of watergate? what role did you play? >> well, he's not the person to answer that. he played a critical role. a critical role. i am not saying it would never have come out, but it sure as hell would not have come out at

the time it came out. it sure as hell would not have gotten cbs interested, and no network would have touched that story. no network would have touched that story appeared to many unknowns and they controlled licenses. you know. --was terror in congo terror stacy -- stay the hell out. .ho is to say never >> what happened is, and you know because of what you have done in your watergate exhibit, you know as a professional historian the importance of chronology. thatave got to understand this happened before this, this happened before that. think what the real impact

was was with two subscribers of the "washington post." burglars the watergate and they were in the courtroom, and they presented -- the prosecutors presented the case saying gordon liddy is the mastermind or no higher ups are involved. and the judge is reading in the "washington post" quite regularly that higher ups are involved. , and i talked to him many years later about this, and he said when he saw that, he then cranked up his west ginning of the burglars -- his questioning of the burglars. and he threatened 25-year sentences if they did not start cooperating. and they eventually -- the famous letter was wrote saying

it was perjury and higher ups were involved to but the impact of the judge was immense. the second important one was .enator sam ervin >> anybody remember sam ervin? [applause] yeah, you do. >> and ervin called me and said come see me. this was in january 1973 also, i think after the katharine graham lunch, and he said we are going to think about investigating watergate. i have read your story and the implications are incredible, and we have an obligation as a senate to launch an inquiry. who are your sources? cannotaid, you know, we name our sources, even to you. he said, i understand that, but we're going to go ahead, and i hope we can get to the bottom of the involvement of the deputy

campaign manager. huge or the line there. of course, they launched that investigation to one of the by thees was voted 77-0 senate. on forpublicans signing this investigation, and it was the gold standard of investigation. they got testimony from everyone. they discovered the tapes which were crucial to unraveling what really happened in watergate. there,causal connection -- make extravagant claims about the press or the post bringing down a precedent. that is just not troop you what happened is the agencies of government, the senate and eventually the house of representatives and the impeachment inquiry, the justice department realized they could

not do this through normal channels. they had have a special prosecutor. >> the attorney general was about to go to jail. who heads the justice department. >> yes. it there were problems, but was the agencies of government that then launched an inquiry into this and took the kind of testimony and got the kind of evidence and so forth that established what really happened. >> before we go to questions, tell us what you remember of august 9, 1974, the davie president resigned? president nixon resigned? >> oh, mine. i mean, it was one of the longest days of my life. you, if you know what it takes to assemble a paper, you probably do not know aat it takes to disassemble

paper, which we had to do that night. i mean, we did not want some rinky-dink feature story on page news, notll of the absolutely sure what the news was, and we were treading on a minefield there for a while. >> because it was not clear whether he was going to resign or not. it was back and forth to her the night before august 9, he did going television and announced he was going to resign. >> and mind you, we had some good sources who were close. you can say, like barry goldwater -- source ors our secret nobody thought that barry goldwater would have a friend on the "washington post," but he , should ie's mother's say it, boyfriend? [laughter] [applause]

we saw a lot of barry goldwater. [laughter] >> too much information, ben. [laughter] >> but as nice a man that ever drew a breath, incidentally, and he was a tremendously useful source. he toldhe last week you, look, nixon is going to resign, but don't say so in the "washington post" because that will cause him to stay. [laughter] a day.eld it >> that question, it was in the real east room where nixon called together his friends and cabinet and senior staff, and it was a speech without notice, nixon unscripted. he talked about his mother and

his father, and it was a very emotional -- [laughter] well, it was. raw.now, it is nixon but there is a moment in that speech which i think is so important to the nixon presidency and the legacy of nixon. end, he is, near the like thisarm, kind of is why i called you all here, and he said, always remember, others may hate you, but those unlesste you do not win un them, and then you destroy yourself. think about the brilliance -- no, seriously -- of that statement. poisontified hate as the

that drove too much of watergate , too much of the mentality in his white house. and to his credit, at that moment, he is giving up the presidency which he had fought all of his life for. he is detached intellectually enough to realize what had hating hack,t the yes, and impact on those he and what occurred and investigations and so forth. time, assistant at the special assistant to the president, came to the same conclusion. we would like to take questions. two people that will come to you. ok. when. woodward, where and

did you first meet mark felt? >> in the white house. when i was in the navy, one of who ibs edward moore, was working for, gave me was a urier, to take documents to the white house. .t was 1969, 1970 i went outside the situation room and i was supposed to deliver them to somebody by name, so i had to wait. there was a guy sitting next to me, and it turned out he had to wait about an hour. as i said in one of the books, it was like we were two passengers seated next to each other on a long plane ride. so i introduced myself and he reluctantly introduced himself. he was number three in the fbi at that point, i believe. and we had a lot of time to talk

. i was trying to figure out what to do with my life, and i got his phone number and can't in touch with him. in touch-- and kept with him. in the exit this was, first, in beforerting career, was watergate. with thatassisted me work that i did. and then when watergate came, he was right there. to take a question from the theater. how differently do you think watergate would have played out with today's instant log media ?nd 24/seven news coverage >> that is interesting. well, i do not think a newspaper can hold a story as long as the

post did without surrendering it to television and two other stories. we really held it from -- i forgot the date. the date we ran it was august. >> yeah, we would run drafts of stories and you would ask weston's and it would be days or weeks before we would run stories sometimes. you, of course, could not do that now. >> i mean, it was plain to see that we were dealing with something that modestly was earth-shaking, and the compulsion to be right is born into a journalist, even more than. -- even more then. i think if there was another yeah, the "new york times" or the "l.a. times" were on the story and writing it

day-after-day, it would have moved a lot faster. >> but if you had the internet and blogs and so forth, a lot of young people have asked about this and you say, just go to the internet and find out. the point is, this information was not on the internet. [laughter] even though it did not exist. now inequivalent story 2011 would not be on the internet. that you need human sources, people who were there who are going to say this is what occurred and this is what it means. it is absolutely critical. and people who are journalists now are spending all day at their computer and on the screens, and they are missing something. with a related question, newspapers becoming obsolete --

i did not write this. what advice would you get a high school student thinking of pursuing a career in journalism? know.on't [laughter] i have been asked that. i have had two children who became journalists. a job on a small paper and learn how to write. learn how to write, a declarative sentence that people can understand, so you can make it clear. [applause] well, i mean, that ought to be obvious. [laughter] hard, that is essential. i mean, really hard. woodward never stops working.

wherek there was a period i went to the office every day for a year and a half, sundays, the whole nine yards, just as hard as i could go. this is when i was made assistant managing editor. i knew notto be sure only what was happening, but who the cast of characters were, who you had to work with. i generally -- >> i generally that that reporters -- first of all, it is the best job in the world. of some of the game from mars to spend the year on this planet and went back and was asked, who are the people who have the best jobs in america, they would say the journalist. why? because you get to make momentary entries into people's lives when they are interesting, and then you get out when they

cease to be interesting. [laughter] and all the lawyers and all the doctors -- you have doctors who may spend days seeing only routine cases. the routine, that is boring. there is that a electricity. what don't we know? why did somebody say this or do that? who is lying? >> a lot of people do not tell the truth. [laughter] yes there. you had a question. theme ofthe same journalism.

do you think that story of the magnitude that you had it would be possible in today's newsroom? >> sure. it would be possible. >> what was the question? >> absolutely. sayings at the washington post was, all good work is done in defiance of management. [laughter] [applause] that is from the heart. it doesn't mean you break the rules of the law. men.all the presidents

bernstein is a living and walking the fines of management. it is an aggressiveness and curiosity. by -- i don't sit remember once there was somebody we wanted to talk to, and that somebody was getting in a cap going to new york with a bunch that she call me at the airport and said i don't .ave any money this is not a defiance. you're the master of this. you give people a lot of string. go out and find out what is going on. you're not going to find out what is going on sitting in your

office or going out to lunch occasionally to get a width of what is going on. you're not getting to the heart stuff. you need to be in that position. this is a story. we are going to do this. you need editors and owners who say, ok, go to it. where was the risk in watergate? catherine graham was an established figure. have gone to rolling stone and been a rock critic. i could've done something distasteful like go to law school. [laughter] we were young kids. on a personal level, but their risk was institutional, and you have to be willing to take institutional

risks. as you always -- said about the paper, ben, the daily miracle. >> the daily miracle? >> yes. >> a question? >> if what it would've happened today -- if watergate would have it's hard toy -- believe that it is not happened ever since. what a president resign over this? >> you know something? [laughter] you never know. i was once asked.

ask.always want to >> if the pentagon papers case were to come before the supreme court today, how do you think the court would rule? [laughter] well, all of the anthony's inlli is an originalist -- i hope they would say it has already been decided and let the ruling stand. to the a vital ruling democracy in this country. i really think it is the biggest problem we have in this country -- secret government.

[applause] said democracies die in darkness, i think that is true. ball and can use the government to our political will and no one is watching, no accountability, whoever says this -- outcomes ofe come watergate is information about your government or that is one of the legacies. should strengthen and gladden the heart of citizens. they can get information about the government that perhaps the government would rather than not have. [applause]

>> right on. >> is investigative journalism today the same caliber as when you worked at the post? >> i still work at the post. sure. keep hammering at that. my time doingf books. there are tens of thousands of port from top-secret meetings -- thousands of words from top-secret meetings in that book. it is not something somebody handed out to me. it is the process of going sawnd -- some years ago, i all the presidents men movie again. i had not seen it for 25 years. i realize all the good work is done at night.

you get the truth that night. you get lies during the day. [laughter] i did for books on bush. when i was working on the fourth one -- how quickly tell the story -- there was a general who would not talk to me. e-mails, phone calls, intermediaries, and i needed him. i found that where he lived. make anl time to announced -- an unscheduled 8:15ng with a general is p.m. he opens the door. i will quote them directly. -- are you still doing the ship? t? [laughter]

i wanted to say, i don't like your characterization of my work. i was silent. he looked at me and literally said, come on in. witht three hours later the answers to the questions from somebody who supposedly would never talk. >> there are some journalism students -- let me something about investigative reporting. all reporting is investigative. -- second question you ask you are investigating. get an answer and that does not satisfy you, dig deeper. understand got to that the government should learn to expect that all reporting is

going to turn investigative along the line. it is not the scariest word in the english language. your general conversation, if you're trying to get your child to tell you what the hell is she has been doing, you're investigating the first version of it. of the mostre one celebrated interviewers. you've interviewed almost everyone. what tips would you give aspiring journalist and conducting successful interviews? ande talk about internet cable news, the driving forces -- i think the key to interviewing people is do your homework. if i'm going to

interview somebody in the pentagon, state department, or white house, and they wrote an oricle in foreign affairs another academic journal -- thank you -- and read the dam thing. it is always hard. [laughter] it in thebout interview. it's not a ruse. is you haveription to take people as seriously as they take themselves. these jobs take themselves seriously. if you meet them on the terms of , i really want to know what you did and think, and i am not an hurry -- i'll save for three

hours or five hours -- you can make in roads. there is something about people in this country, even we found in watergate, people who have committed illegal acts who kind of believe in the first amendment and were willing to talk. sometimes they were willing to talk extensively, sometimes in limited ways. there is a community of interest that everyone has that asks what is going on and who are the people who have the levers of power. >> tilde to do their homework. -- tell them to do their homework. pursue something. get them to explain themselves. then get them to explain it again. if there story changes a little.

wonder why. it is really fun. [laughter] >> thank you for coming today, gentlemen. with nearly 40 years perspective, how do you view the president nixon and his pardon by president ford. ? what achievements of the next and presidency still resonate today? oh, god. i hate to answer that question. i don't really know. thing wasight in this too pardon him. >> can i tell a story about the

pardon? ford went on television to announce the pardon early on sunday, hoping nobody would notice. it was noticed. not by me. i was asleep. carl bernstein called me and what me up. carl has the ability to say what occurred in the fewest words with the most drama. son of a pitch pardon the son of a pitch. [laughter] i'm just quoting. honestly, i thought, and carl thought, and i know been thought that there is something dirty about the pardon.

the aroma of the deal. the question of justice. anded 40 people go to jail dozens more have their lives wrecked? 25 years later, i decided to take the bradley method, neutral inquiry, what happened. legacyhis book about the of watergate. i called gerald ford up and asked to talk to him about the pardon, figuring he would say that he had a golf tournament, but he said no, come on. he was in new york that day. i interviewed him for hours. that was in rancho mirage in california. at the time, this is the luxury,

bradley's gift, time to read all the memoirs, interview everyone who was alive. do a graph of what occurred. go back to everything to go back to fort again. -- go back to everything. go back to ford again. pardon nixond not for myself. i pardoned nixon for the country could we had to move beyond watergate. investigated, for the tribe, indicted, and sent to jail, we would have three more years of watergate. he said, look at the world i'm war, problemsd with the russians, serious problems with the economy. he said, i had to preempt the

process to get nixon off the front page and out of people's lives and into history. this andat all of wrote that i thought that gerald ford's decision was a gutsy one. jfk, your long time acquaintance and friend, caroline kennedy called and said that teddy kennedy and i wrote wroteou -- read what you and we agree. they are at the kennedy library months later -- teddy kennedy -- that the time of the pardon called it almost a criminal act, the politicians somethin hate to say, i was wrong.

this was an act of courage. this was another leader going against the grain and realizing what is in the larger national interest in the office of the ,resident, to serve the people not himself, not the former president, and i remover seeing that. it was so sobering for somebody in my business. you subjected to neutral scrutiny and it is the opposite. [applause] >> is somebody interested in a career in journalism, have you ever feared for your life. ? if so, did it affect your

journalistic activities? >> have you ever feared for your life? >> crossing the street. [laughter] was -- i will give you a carefully personal -- the first and itwas on a destroyer was attacked by a bunch of japanese planes. i was scared to death. myselfdidn't embarrass and i was never scared after that. say, holy you know what, is this going to hurt me.

afterh that saying that the navy, everything is easy. we we thought lives can be in danger -- it was more my but no one tried to kill reporters. they do abroad. all of the time. --should thank >> what is it? 40 or 50 a year? >> it is a giant problem. thank god, not here. the first amendment operates. there was a white house scheme when nixon was president to try to assassinate jack anderson,

the columnist. hunt and libby. we ran the story. >> even it and would not have let that happen. nixon would not have let that happen. [laughter] >> they could not figure out how to do it. [laughter] room,brought me to this where i never would have had the pleasure of being. i don't know how to say this without making myself look like a fool. it made you a minor celebrity. >> real minor. [laughter] >> that's enough.

you answer it then. >> somebody once said, take your not yourself.t your no when you go to your watergate exhibit, which you have done a little bit of and i would do more today. it is factual. this happened. i have often said this and thought this, at each point in that chronology, if richard nixon had had one strong lawyer aid who said stop this, you can't think and act like this.

it might have stopped. on the other hand, there was so much of it. there was such a mentality that drove it. maybe it was unstoppable. maybe the person who might say that would never be allowed in the oval office to communicate that message. andink always that you watergate and the chronology and exhibit, you can go in, and if one thing did not happen, everything after -- at least in terms of it being disclosed -- disclosure hangs on the most fragile, thinnest of fred's. -- thinnest of threads. someone can cut it. i repeatedly found myself withholding judgment.

war.george bush's iraq wants, how will history judge your iraq war, after talking to him for hours about it. he stands in the oval office and -- i asked, pocket how do you think history will judge the iraq war. history, wed says, won't know we will all be dead. comforting thought. [laughter] he is ducking the question. we don't know how it will look. >> in your work on presidents, have you changed your mind about the president over the course of

investigating and writing about that? a real seahrough change there. easier -- as much it's in my nature to ask questions and find out. >> yes, sir. [indiscernible] about whethern is he lost itted that jimmy carter in 1976 because the pardon. the answer is yes. we don't know. it was part of jimmy carter's

effort -- he talked about that nixon-ford administration quite successfully. just read something about how american opinion had changed about it and now there was a sizable 70% plus majority that approved of it? >> of the pardon? >> yes. >> that is true. >> my name is laura. i want to say thank you for being here this evening. what are your thoughts on the media and the governments reaction to julian assange and the wiki links? wikileaks? >> neither one of us is the

world leading authority. >> now i will pretend i am. [laughter] > it's the ambassador met with the head of state in the country and what the ambassador thanks. -- ambassador thinks. those documents don't have much standing in terms of the decision-making by the president , how much is controlled at the white house, the white house centric operation. people who have made claims that -- documents that tell you how the big decisions are made in government -- they are exaggerating. that is not the case. at the same time, it is useful information.

the initial idea of the wholesale publication of hundreds of thousands of classified documents without -- you would never do it. you would say, read them. are we going to tell somebody about secret operations and get people killed unnecessarily? you were always emphatic about that. wikileaks is being more careful now. wikileaks will not go down in history. the pentagon papers due and will always. >> i have a three-part question. >> just one part. >> please. >> what was in the watergate towers or after? list?xon have a hit

unions have a part in this? no knowledge of labor unions. >> i don't have a clue what they thought they were going to get. >> i think the testimony of the burglars and others, as you well fishing was a general expedition to get dirt on the enemy. >> they all testified to wanting something different. it all comes under the dirt category. >> find something that will give us leverage against democrats. >> imagine the decision to go ahead with that? i don't think that will happen again? i hope not anyway. [laughter]

>> we have to talk. [laughter] >> yes, that gentleman. >> after reaching such a pinnacle of excellence at a have you suffered any kind of letdown afterwards? if so, how have you come back and done all the thoughtful work sense? ever suffer a letdown after watergate. let me to your story. this was after nixon resigned. it was lunch time one day in the newsroom. i was in ben's office. there were these big glass panes.

meetingould see who was with the bosses. said, come on. i came in. there was an obituary page from the new york times and he said, see that, that is you. , john jones,t at 1972, one pulitzer prize in 1941. [laughter] that's me? he said, yes, that is you. 1941. 72.s now ever hear of anything you did? , i think you like this

, not get out of here and get to work. i have a story to tell you something about him. when i had both the head of the cia and the head in my office at the same time. it.woodward could not stand [laughter] had not heard about it. didn't know what the conversation was. important, but anyway. one of my favorite sites in life is to remove her bottle woodward -- bob woodward -- there is a

glass window -- woodward walked in front of the office this way -- all during the conversation. [laughter] remember -- know how many of you remember robert penn warren. he wrote all the kings men. i was at an event where he was being interviewed. professor, harold bloom, turned him and said, i was convinced that you could not write again. warren --ou, then pen foreign? he said, i'm glad i did not know

you then. there were 11 bestsellers after that. another question? over there. ofwhat was your reception david frost interviews of richard nixon? they were pretty good, as i remember them. >> they were. one point he asked woodward,myself and he said politics in washington, that is the way it is. said, what they write is trash and they are trash.

>> to put it broadly. >> i was sufficiently disturbed to call my mother. that?, did you see she said, yes. i said, yes. said, that is washington. that is politics. [laughter] said we work for a liberal newspaper. >> yes. , on up. all the way up to yes. hello. >> do you think nixon was a good

president? [laughter] it turned outwas he was a terrible president. -- his after watergate presidency was so scarred by het he did in watergate that could not really say the rest of his reputation. after watergate, if you could icise that, which you can't, think in certain foreign situations he was ok. you?w old are journalism.ob in that is a great question. this is the judgment question.

what we know actually, particularly from the tapes, there is so much of next and on rage,tapes, anger, regular ordering of illegal and abusive activity. you can hear it on more tapes. i brought some examples. you don't need to hear more about nixon tapes, but my problem with what happened during that presidency -- and i agree with ben, some very important accomplishments are included -- you listen to the tapes and it is always about next and. about nixon. it is about using the power of the presidency to settle a score with somebody. let's screw so-and-so. let's put them on the tax audit

list. they got the secret service to bug the telephone -- nixon got this secret service to bug the telephone of his rent a great -- renegade brother. that never barks on the tapes, and i have not heard them all looked at them -- you don't hear the president or his aides saying, what would be good for the country? what does the country need? what is the next stage of good for the majority of the people? sense, maybe the tragic part of the nixon presidency is its smallness. levelsnot reach on many that sense of goodwill, people feel, republicans or democrats

--i have seen it for decades that there was this anger and insecurity, and as a result, the office was diminished ego they were talking about so many small things when they should have been talking about larger things. speak a you please little bit about john dean? >> what about him? >> when he broke ranks. >> dean was the white house counsel who blew the whistle on nixon early and testified in the committee and said there were all these conversations. >> nobody likes a whistleblower. not verynly was

popular in government. >> he paid the price. he was the whistleblower. he was the snitch. testimonyout that his said is true. -- it wasetail remarkable. he did not know there was a taping system. he is somebody that the next people hold in the highest disregard. i spoke with the nixon center a number of months ago. they invited me to speak there. all the old nixon hands were there and so forth. dimitri sims, who runs the center, said that the only person we will not invite here is john dean.

question back there. last question. >> mr. woodward, you sold your personal watergate archives to the university of texas. is in there stuff that is waiting for historians to find and that will bring up the story and interesting ways. ? what is in there is how we did it. .ou can see the trail somebody saysew, something very the next day, somebody is making phone calls of putting the pieces of the puzzle together. it is a pretty large archive under the terms of the contract with the university of texas, we retain the files of people who are still alive.

send the fileswe down. later this week, we are going down there to do some symposiums with academics and robert redford, who did the movie, all the presidents men. we are taking a bunch of files of people who passed away. .here is one in particular people will be surprised to the extent that this person helped us on the second book we did, on the final days. how people at the very top of the nixon administration felt disappointed, felt a sense of an avid ability because of what inevitability because of what went on. they felt this in late 1972,

early 9073. early 1973. language,ople's real exactly how we undertook our work. >> any concluding thoughts? i don't write editorials. no, i am very impressed by that you are all still interested in this. it's a long time ago. i don't think there is another historical -- how long ago was it -- 40 years. you show a detailed knowledge of

it that is very impressive. i think that is fabulous. it is an interesting story. it still is. president of the united states getting his you know what and a crack like that. [laughter] i mean, holy moly. [applause] >> thank you. in conclusion, this question came from the theater, you have been thinking about watergate lately. you have come up with a new formulation to understand. >> i would love to make it very quick.

watergate and the mentality that drove it, nixon and the people around him, a series of wars. , when nixon war took office, he in heritage the vietnam war. anti-vietnamke the protests and the people opposed to the war. declared war against the antiwar movement. the usual techniques of following, wiretaps, and so forth. then it turned out that the wars was in the second reporting extensively on the vietnam war and the anti-vietnam war movement. 17y tap the telephone of reporters, white house aides. 1972, what they did was the

ellsberg burglary. press ofat the publishing the pentagon papers. in the third war, nixon is running for reelection. that had done the ellsberg burglary and a lot of the secret work was directed at the democrats. the democrats were a threat to nixon staying in office and the vietnam war. , thegate occurred burglary, and the fourth war, which was the war on justice, orchestrated and well-funded cover-up, denial of what occurred. the fifth war was after nixon left office in 1974. for 20 years of his life, he

conducted a war against history to try and minimize watergate, to say it was a blip, and avoid confronting what he in his own words, and dozens of hours of tapes. sixth war was fought at the nixon library. how are you going to do with watergate. toa journalist who tries let'sake neutral inquiry, find out what happened. let's find out what the facts are. , you and the professional historians have said, we have to deal with the reality. wa isrth r is the library.

large, what i think history, and it's kind of etched permanently there, because of that display in the library. people are going to find things that sicken them. people will find things that they stand up and say, because there were moments in the nixon presidency when he wrote to the occasion, particularly in foreign affairs, where he had a vision with china and the soviet union, it was historic.

as we go through time, when we are all gone, as bush says, history, we will not know. we will all be dead. [laughter] [applause] note, let very happy me thank bob woodward and ben bradley. thank you. thank you for coming tonight. thank you very much. you are watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook at c-span history. the