From “Understanding the Impact of the Deep Throat” by PBS News Hour (2005). GWEN IFILL: Now that we can put a name and face on "Deep Throat," what more is there to learn from that 30-year-old secret, and how did the Watergate scandal he helped unleash end up shaping our government, our politics and our journalism? ELLEN FITZPATRICK: I think it created a much deeper skepticism in American life about American politics. It’s hard to turn the hands of time back to remember that there was the day when the president was greatly revered, there was tremendous respect for the office. It was often the case that people believed that when the president spoke, he told the truth, and when he said something was so, it was so. Watergate changed all of that. GWEN IFILL: Herb Klein, you were in the Nixon White House and you have spent the years since watching other presidencies. What’s your sense on how much Watergate changed the whole face of the presidency? HERBERT KLEIN: I think it changed it considerably, and the first thing it did was to weaken the power of the presidency. Congress moved against the White House, and so, for example, when the North Vietnamese moved to South Vietnam, President Ford was pretty much handicapped from doing so. GWEN IFILL: I definitely want to go back to that, but Sanford Ungar, let me ask you. You knew Mark Felt [AKA Deep Throat], wrote a book about the FBI, and you’ve certainly been watching all of this, including the way journalism has changed since the 1970s. What’s your answer to that question? SANFORD UNGAR: Well, I think the first thing is the book to say, Gwen, is that it’s fascinating to look back now and see that Mark Felt, when I knew him for a period of time, was a very opportunistic person who thought still he had a chance to become director of the FBI, and I think he may have done the right thing for the wrong motive or at least for partially the wrong motive at the time. PULLLING IT ALL TOGETHER THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Answer the following questions: 1. What does Ungar think Felt’s motive was for going public with Watergate? 2. What are 2 impacts the Watergate Scandal had on the presidency, according to the interview? 3. Bringing together the Functionalist Perspective and the reading above, what do you think would be the functional view of the government’s behavior in these cases, and how do you think advocates of the Functionalist Perspective would perceive the actions of the whistleblowers? Would they be seen as heroes of the people? Or as traitors against the government?

From “Understanding the Impact of the Deep Throat” by PBS News Hour (2005). GWEN IFILL: Now that we can put a name and face on "Deep Throat," what more is there to learn from that 30-year-old secret, and how did the Watergate scandal he helped unleash end up shaping our government, our politics and our journalism? ELLEN FITZPATRICK: I think it created a much deeper skepticism in American life about American politics. It’s hard to turn the hands of time back to remember that there was the day when the president was greatly revered, there was tremendous respect for the office. It was often the case that people believed that when the president spoke, he told the truth, and when he said something was so, it was so. Watergate changed all of that. GWEN IFILL: Herb Klein, you were in the Nixon White House and you have spent the years since watching other presidencies. What’s your sense on how much Watergate changed the whole face of the presidency? HERBERT KLEIN: I think it changed it considerably, and the first thing it did was to weaken the power of the presidency. Congress moved against the White House, and so, for example, when the North Vietnamese moved to South Vietnam, President Ford was pretty much handicapped from doing so. GWEN IFILL: I definitely want to go back to that, but Sanford Ungar, let me ask you. You knew Mark Felt [AKA Deep Throat], wrote a book about the FBI, and you’ve certainly been watching all of this, including the way journalism has changed since the 1970s. What’s your answer to that question? SANFORD UNGAR: Well, I think the first thing is the book to say, Gwen, is that it’s fascinating to look back now and see that Mark Felt, when I knew him for a period of time, was a very opportunistic person who thought still he had a chance to become director of the FBI, and I think he may have done the right thing for the wrong motive or at least for partially the wrong motive at the time. PULLLING IT ALL TOGETHER THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Answer the following questions: 1. What does Ungar think Felt’s motive was for going public with Watergate? 2. What are 2 impacts the Watergate Scandal had on the presidency, according to the interview? 3. Bringing together the Functionalist Perspective and the reading above, what do you think would be the functional view of the government’s behavior in these cases, and how do you think advocates of the Functionalist Perspective would perceive the actions of the whistleblowers? Would they be seen as heroes of the people? Or as traitors against the government?