I can't help but think how naive the OP sounds, with statements like these:<p>> <i>40 years ago, two journalists showed the world that the president of the most powerful nation used the Secret Services to wiretap his political opponents. This investigative work granted them the Pulitzer Prize and led to the resignation of the president.</i><p>First of all, winning the Pulitzer Prize doesn't validate journalism. It's a prize given by journalists to journalists, and despite what the OP thinks of today's investigative journalism, journalists are still giving each other Pulitzer Prizes for investigative work, so not sure why he uses it as some kind of metric.<p>Second, I'm not familiar with all the details of Watergate, but I don't remember it being a scandal involving the Secret Service.<p>Details, details, I know. But the OP approaches this issue with incredible wide-eyed naivete, with no real knowledge of what's happened in the past. I'd hate to think what kind of jaded essay he'd write if he really studied world history pre-2001.