"Deep Throat was a very unfortunate name given to the source by the managing editor of The Washington Post"
About this Quote
In this quote, Bob Woodward is attending to the now-iconic pseudonym "Deep Throat", which was used to refer to the secret informant who played a pivotal role in discovering the Watergate scandal. The name was offered by Howard Simons, the managing editor of The Washington Post throughout this troubled time in American history.
Woodward's choice of the word "regrettable" suggests a couple of layers of meaning. Firstly, the name "Deep Throat" brings with it certain connotations connected to the infamous adult movie of the same name, which was released in the early 1970s and ended up being a cultural phenomenon. By referencing a movie related to the adult show business, the pseudonym might appear trivializing or sensationalistic, particularly considering the gravity of the Watergate scandal and its ramifications for American politics.
The term "unfortunate" may also indicate that the name inadvertently distracted from the serious nature of the investigative journalism work being done. Instead of focusing solely on the high-stakes investigation into political corruption, the media and public might have been tempted to focus on the intriguing name. This could have, in Woodward's view, detracted from the stability and credibility of the journalism practiced by The Washington Post.
Moreover, the secrecy and mystery surrounding Deep Throat's identity for many years-- just exposed in 2005 as previous FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt-- contributes to the conversation about the suitability of the name. The pseudonym itself became legendary, signifying the importance of whistleblowers in holding power to account, however all at once welcoming curiosity and speculation due to its eye-catching nature.
In essence, Woodward's remark reflects a nuanced perspective on the mixing of popular culture and severe journalism. While "Deep Throat" unquestionably served its function by capturing the general public's imagination and interest, Woodward underscores the possible risks of such an option in interfering with the earnest journalistic ventures to expose a profound political scandal.
