Bulwark Takes—Movie Club:

Episode: “All the President’s Men” vs. Trump’s Daily Insanity
Date: September 30, 2025
Host: The Bulwark (A), with guests Jonathan V. Last (C), Jonathan Cohn (B) (filling in for Sarah Longwell)
Theme: The enduring myth and cultural power of All the President’s Men in shaping American journalism—and how that mythology holds up across the shifting realities of the Trump era and modern news culture.

Episode Overview

This lively episode brings together three longtime journalists and movie buffs to dissect the legacy of All the President’s Men as the “founding myth” of modern journalism. The hosts compare the film’s era with the unending, tumultuous news cycle of today, particularly in the context of the Trump years. They examine the film's successes, its place in journalism cinema, the evolution of reporting methods, and the changing weight of journalistic institutions in American civic life.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Connections to the Film and Its Legacy

• Jonathan Cohn’s poster story: Cohn’s lifelong affection for the film, symbolized by a poster in his workspace since his college journalism days (00:26–01:32), sets the stage for the episode’s deeply personal tone.
  • “This movie was such a formative experience in my life. I’ve had that poster since I was 20 years old.” (B, 00:26)
• All the President’s Men is described as the essential journalism movie—the one most cited by those who say cinema inspired them to report (02:05).

2. The “Founding Myth” of Modern Journalism

• Jonathan V. Last (C) argues that the film is more than important—it's the story journalism tells about itself:
  • “All the President’s Men is the founding myth of all modern journalism.” (C, 02:58)
  • “This is the story which modern journalism tells about itself, to understand itself.” (C, 03:14)

3. Underdogs, Misfits, and the “Slobs vs. Snobs” Ethos

• Cohn identifies with the film's underdog message—journalists as outsiders challenging entrenched power:
  • “The journalists were always kind of the misfits, right? They were the ones who couldn’t…work in the sort of orderly world of law…They were unkempt, they didn’t dress as nicely. They talked kind of funny. They were socially awkward.” (B, 06:05)
• The newsroom’s dysfunction is not only accurate, but part of what makes journalism appealing and vital (06:05–07:06).

4. Journalistic Craft: From Typewriters to Word Processors to AI

• Vivid nostalgia and discussion of analog publishing, including typewriters, wax layouts, and column inches versus modern digital workflows (08:04–11:54).
  • “The form drove the content…You really had to be disciplined about getting the important stuff up top because you didn’t know what kind of column inches you’d had at the back.” (B, 09:21)
• Last (C) theorizes word processors rewired writers’ brains, fundamentally altering writing and editing (12:13).
  • "The ability to word process and delete and go back and move copy around has just taught us to approach writing in an entirely different way…barely even the same discipline." (C, 13:10)
• They muse on whether future technological leaps (like AI) will have even more profound impacts on journalistic skills (13:13–14:18).

5. Film Structure and Cinematic Success

• The hosts marvel at how All the President’s Men, a movie where “nothing happens,” is so compelling:
  • “It is a story that everybody knows…nothing happens. All of the action has already happened after five minutes of the movie.” (C, 17:01)
• Credit is given to William Goldman’s screenplay and Robert Redford’s magnetism for making the tedious work of journalism riveting (15:11–17:01).
  • “Robert Redford is compelling…no matter what he is doing, and a lot of what he is doing in this movie is holding a telephone by his ears, eye acting…” (A, 15:11)

6. Mistakes, Suspense, and the Limits of Heroism

• The film ends on a bungled story, and on the ambiguity of real reporting—mirroring the ongoing, unfinished nature of most investigative work (18:50–21:44).
  • “It ends in the middle of the story…that should not work. But I think it’s incredibly compelling.” (B, 20:16)
• Goldman’s narrative strategies (delaying the famous break-in, using montages, etc.) are dissected as ways to circumvent the “everyone knows how this ends” trap (18:50–21:44).

7. Depicting Journalism as Tedium and Grind—But Keeping It Cinematic

• The film succeeds in capturing monotony without boring the audience, showing the “tedious” phone calls, library searches, and grind of investigative work while holding suspense (23:13–27:03).
  • “It captures the tedium of journalism. So much of journalism is tedious…The problem is, if you convey that on film, it’s also boring. And those two scenes did such a great job…” (B, 24:23)
• Last (C) references William Goldman’s “fallacy of imitative form”—making dull work dramatic without being dull (26:37).

8. Genre: Not Just a Journalism Film, But Noir/Mystery

• All the President’s Men shares more with 1970s paranoid thrillers and noir mysteries (e.g., Chinatown) than pure journalism dramas—a story where the chase leads everyone somewhere unexpected (27:03–29:51).

9. Time Capsule of Old-School Reporting

• Long aside about the “time capsule” feel—rotary phones, cityscapes, phone books, and a moment when merely invoking the Washington Post’s name opened doors (30:27–33:01).
  • “A newspaper can matter if people are just going to talk to you like, ‘I’m from The Washington Post’…That is a foreign country in ways that I think make no sense to anybody anymore.” (C, 31:23)

10. Erosion of Journalistic Impact in Politics and Culture

• Debate over whether institutions like the NYT or Post still have their old power—does a big story even move opinion or power anymore? (33:01–37:48)
  • "We're doing Watergate every day, and nobody cares. Even the people who hate Trump don't particularly care." (C, 36:25)
• Exploring whether the myth of journalism (the lone reporter bringing down a president) distorts a more complex picture of how real accountability and reform happen (38:32–39:45).

11. Chicken and Egg: Is It the Elites or the Public Who Changed?

• Circular argument over whether America’s “decadence” is a failure of institutional elites or a public that no longer demands decency (40:26–47:03).
  • “Once people are willing to say that out loud, all of public morality starts shifting.” (C, 42:19)

12. Pantheon of Journalism Movies

• Each host gives their “top three” essential journalism films, with explanations. Picks include:
  • Spotlight, The Paper, The Insider, The French Dispatch, Ace in the Hole, Shattered Glass, Nightcrawler (48:07–56:14).
  • “Spotlight…does a really nice job of capturing both the tedium and the lack of glamour.” (B, 48:09)
  • "The French Dispatch is a movie-length love letter to The New Yorker." (C, 51:01)
• They reflect on how each film approaches the ethos (or mythology) of journalism—either idealistic or cynically comedic.

13. Final Reflections: Decline or Hope?

• Two sharply contrasting takes finish the episode:
  • Last (C) takes a bleak view:
    • “This is a debased country with a decadent people who no longer are interested in corruption. And I’m not sure where you go from there. That is what civilizational suicide looks like.” (C, 57:13)
  • Cohn (B) is hopeful:
    • “I think you should watch All the President’s Men to remember what can happen when you have institutions and people at institutions who believe in Principle who stand up to power and authority. And that’s still possible. I believe it is still possible.” (B, 57:50)

Key Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the myth of hero-journalists:
  “If you watch the movie and you didn’t know anything else, you would think Woodward and Bernstein brought down Nixon. They played a role…But there was a lot more going on than just these two reporters in the Washington Post.” (B, 39:45)

• On modern indifference to scandal:
  “We're doing Watergate every day, and nobody cares. Even the people who hate Trump don't particularly care. They're just like, yeah, that's right. We're doing Watergate every day. What are you gonna do?” (C, 36:25)

• On what’s lost in the digital shift:
  “The ability to word process and delete and go back and move copy around has just taught us to approach writing in an entirely different way…barely even the same discipline.” (C, 13:10)

• On institutions today:
  “I refuse to believe it’s not [still possible]…Although I am very concerned that we both are losing those institutions and at the institutions we do have, we're losing the people behind them.” (B, 57:50)

• On the movie’s unlikely success:
  “This should not work as a movie…and it is riveting from start to finish in a way that simply should not…One, it is very well written. Good. Very, very good job, Mr. Goldman. You nailed it. But. But the real reason is Robert Redford…” (A, 15:11)

Timestamps for Notable Segments

• Poster origin & formative impact: 00:26–01:32
• "Founding myth" argument: 02:58–03:22
• Underdogs and slobs vs. snobs: 05:58–07:06
• Typewriters & workflow nostalgia: 09:21–11:54
• Word processor rewiring: 12:13–14:18
• Goldman's construction & Redford’s allure: 15:11–17:01
• Ending on a mistake, structure discussion: 18:50–21:44
• Capturing tedium without boring: 23:13–27:03
• Genre comparisons: 27:03–29:51
• Time capsule aspects: 30:27–33:01
• Institutional decline: 33:01–37:48
• Chicken & Egg on public vs. elites: 40:26–47:03
• Journalism movie pantheon: 48:07–56:14
• Hope vs. despair closing arguments: 57:13–58:32

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation is collegial, alternately sardonic and hopeful, with personal anecdotes, technical nerd-outs, and rueful jokes about the profession’s state. The hosts maintain a wry respect for the old myths—particularly All the President’s Men—while also expressing skepticism about their fit in our “daily Watergate” present.

"You should watch All the President’s Men to remember what can happen when you have institutions and people at institutions who believe in principle who stand up to power and authority. And that’s still possible. I believe it is still possible." (B, 57:50)

For listeners:
This episode is a must for movie buffs, journalism nerds, and anyone reckoning with what’s been lost—and what endures—in America’s idea of a free press.