How did the Watergate scandal affect journalists’ views of objectivity?

The Watergate scandal significantly contributed to a growing skepticism among journalists regarding the traditional ideology of objectivity as a reliable path to truth.1

Prior to Watergate, many reporters relied heavily on official government briefings and statements, often deferring to the accounts provided by political sources. However, the failure of such traditional, "objective" reporting to uncover the complex realities of events like the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal led many mainstream journalists to doubt whether this approach could effectively hold power accountable.231

This shift mirrored broader debates sparked by the New Journalism movement, which argued that "objective" stories could be more misleading than those presented from a clear personal perspective. Following Watergate, investigative reporting became a priority, with journalists increasingly challenging government and corporate secrecy rather than accepting official narratives at face value. Ultimately, this disillusionment with the traditional standard of objectivity was so profound that by 1996, the Society of Professional Journalists removed the term from its ethics code, favoring principles like fairness and accuracy.12