> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. The tautology being that important people are important.[1] Applying wishful thinking for

> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. The tautology being that important people are important.[1] Applying wishful thinking for the moment, what would America look like today if popular movements in the 60’s had never been infiltrated? What would the civic culture of America look like if regular people were “allowed” to participate in the public sphere without such underhanded tactics from the the government’s side? But I guess all of that is inconsequential, wishful thinking or not. [1] Infer disclaimers. > This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc. You predictably, given the demographics on this board, think that _the point_ is to stick it to The Man, The Press, or some Important Person, in order to embarass or dress them down.[1] And yet that is just a bonus, and was never the point at all. How many small-venue lectures has this man held, how many letters and emails to people-of-no-consequence has he sent, etc.? All in order to support and connect people working in grassroots movements (he explains this in the same interview). Not in order to, once in a blue moon, land a somewhat mainstream interview in order to tell The Press off to their faces or to combat other Important People of Consequence. [1] Andrew Marr was so “dressed down” that he some years later cheered when GB and the US invaded Iraq—that interview had no impact on his view of the press or his role within it, as the Propaganda Model would have predicted.