There have been as many investigative reporters on this newspaper working on Clinton's many problems as I can remember there were working on Watergate.
Sure, some journalists use anonymous sources just because they're lazy and I think editors ought to insist on more precise identification even if they remain anonymous.
The really tough thing would have been to decide to take Woodward and Bernstein off the story. They were carrying the coal for us - in that their stories were right.
I must be out of it, but I don't know any good journalists who have excused Clinton's problems.
We made only one real mistake. And even then we were right.
We were right about the slush fund. But Sloan did not testify about it to the Grand Jury.
It took us about a day and a half to find out what had gone wrong.
They cut about seven minutes from that broadcast, but it was still vital to the story's momentum.
I give Cronkite a whole lot of credit.
I don't know about "any" publisher. But Katharine Graham and I had been working together for almost seven years and we had come to trust each other.
They certainly did. They tried to make her look like a "nut case" and they succeeded to some extent.
The media" is too big a word. I think there are some reporters who have adopted a "gotcha" mentality, but not in the really good newspapers.