The Role of Public Perception in Shaping Media Institutions: A Comparative

Study of the Watergate Scandal and the News International Scandal

Vlad Surdea-Hernea
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Political Science

In this paper I try to offer a comparative view of how public

perception shaped the narrative of media investigations in the cases
of the Watergate and News International Scandal. I argue that mass
media uses all the means possible in order to pursue sensational
information, and, just by chance, sometimes this converges with the
national interest. Based on this, I contend that the two scandal
should be compared not by their particularities, but by the way they
were perceived by the general public.

The crisis of legitimation of political establishments is avoided, Jrgen Habermas upholds, only
because the politicoeconomic structure has been "uncoupled" from the cultural system. This can
happen only in a system in which the institutions of the state are not regularly checked by
another powerful establishment, able to bridge the gap between administrative abuses and
popular reaction.
The only enterprise that actively took upon this role of a custodian is the media, and a great case
study for the way in which it operated against consolidated power, in order to unravel the
misconduct and publicly shame it was the Watergate Scandal. There, proficient journalists risked
not only their careers but also their citizen rights in order to pursue what was deemed as one of
the most controversial stories of modern American history.
But this should not be treated as a general rule of how media operates. The reasoning behind
their approaches is rather an economical one, trying to offer more of a sensationalist form of
news reporting in order to dominate the market of information. Sometimes, like in the case of
Watergate, this means cooperating with the people in their own good, but otherwise, this means
crossing any deontological limit and using your power for purely monetary interests, like in the
case of Rupert Murdochs scandal regarding phone tapping.There, News International,
recognizing its power, used any means possible to obtain scandalous information, wiretapping
and committing diverse illicit actions. In this case, media doesnt look anymore like the
protective guardian it was during the Watergate Scandal.
Many similarities were depicted between those two cases, with much of the time being spent
comparing the similar roles of Nixon and Murdoch- both clearly culpable, both had the charges
against them dismissed in one way or another. But there is one element that is usually presented
in opposition in these two cases, mainly the role of the media, and I do believe this should not be
so.
Diana C. Mutz points out that despite general agreement about the importance of information,
and information from mass media in particular, there is little consensus as to its role, and little
data confirming its importance. I will not attempt to offer any form of normative framework, my
contention will simple be that in both cases addressed in this paper, media operated driven by the
same impetus of obtaining information, using in both cases all the means available, but the
perception of the people differs mainly because of the results, hence the perception is dependent
on the nature of the information
The reason for which Carl Bernstein is considered a hero is not because of his deontology, but
because of the results of his enquiry. If he would have discovered nothing, but the way by which
he operated in the 70s would have been disclosed, he might have risked criminal charges against

him for abusive conduct.By the same metric, the reason for which the News International Group
suffered from the scandal is because the tappings were used for rather mundane reasons, not for
things that the general population might consider to be in the national interest. If, lets say,
Rupert Murdochs journalists would have discovered by hacking into some politicians a plan for
a huge scam, of Watergates proportion, they would be probably considered notables, rather than
criminals.
Therefore, my argument is that media scandals differ mainly in the way in which people perceive
them. Likewise, this public perception is created not by a comprehensive analysis of the means
used by the media, but by the way in which the endgoal affects them, hence according to their
interest. Based on this we can clearly state that media necessary needs to push the boundaries of
what is commonly accepted as deontological only when they are convinced that the means are
excusable by the goal.
Media should not be underestimated, as explained by Donald Shaw and Maxwell McCombs, for
the choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important
part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much
importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its
position. The cases studied today are cases of extreme importance ,because of the nature of the
information attached to them ,information so powerful that it destroyed the capacity of media
agencies to be an inherent trend setter for a passive public opinion, and instead crafted a group of
active citizens that imposed upon media a system of checks and balances , giving credit to those
agencies like Washington Post only as long as they are providing useful-groundbreaking
information, and demonizing News International for doing the opposite.
I started by explaining the ways in which both the Watergate and the News International scandals
unfolded, emphasizing on the means by which media agencies discovered the misdemeanors.
After this, I explained how even if the means remain the same, they are perceived differently by
people based on the ends achieved by the media investigation and the way in which the ends
affect the general public.Furthermore, by this metric, the difference in perception between these
two case studies appears as not to be justified by any deontological rationale, but by pure
consequentialist reasoning. Nevertheless, as explained in the essay, this kind of perception exist
only in exceptional situations, otherwise mass media being capable of shaping the public
assessment. From this point on, I conclude that the comparative between these two scandals
should be made not on intrinsic data, but on the way that people grasp the realities of them.

References
Mutz C. Diana . 'Contextualizing Personal Experience: The Role of Mass Media'. The
Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Aug., 1994), pp. 689-714
Shaw Donald, McCombs Maxwell. ' The Agenda-Setting Function of
Mass Media'. The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2. (Summer, 1972),
pp 176-87

Zimmer A. Troy. 'The Impact of Watergate on the Public's Trust in People and
Confidence in the Mass Media'. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 4 (MARCH, 1979), pp.
743-751