"Unmasking Deep Throat"

John Dean, on a decades-long quest to identify history's most elusive news source, brings new evidence to the fore in his new book.

By Scott Rosenberg

Jun 17, 2002 | Today, the 30th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, Salon publishes John Dean's book, "Unmasking Deep Throat: History's Most Elusive News Source."

The book offers the most comprehensive look yet into the identity of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's famous anonymous source in the Nixon administration, who came to be known as Deep Throat. Dean -- the White House counsel whose testimony broke the Watergate scandal open in the spring of 1973, and author of "Blind Ambition," "Lost Honor" and "The Rehnquist Choice" -- combines new evidence from historical archives with his own recollections to provide a definitive profile of Deep Throat. He also tells the story of how he built what seemed like a solid case pointing to one of his former White House colleagues -- only to have to rule out that possibility in the end. Finally, he offers a "short list" of the few names left in the running for Deep Throat -- "the one person," he writes, "who will go into history outranking me on Richard Nixon's final enemies list."

Salon talked with Dean about his quest to identify Deep Throat, the ethics of leaking to the press and why he chose to publish his work as an e-book. (Editor's Note: For technical reasons this work is no longer available in electronic format. It is available in paperback format here.)

How long have you been searching for Deep Throat?

Throat first surfaced in 1974 when Woodward and Bernstein published "All the President's Men." When I first read the book, I thought that Woodward's friend and source was probably a composite. Some information appeared to come from the White House, some from the FBI, some from the Committee to Re-elect the President, known as CREEP or CRP. But I really didn't start seriously searching until around 1978.

When did you decide Throat was not a composite, and why?

Actually, it was Bob Woodward who persuaded me. I happened to state publicly in a speech, not long after his book came out, that I thought Throat was a composite, and that was picked up by the Washington Post. I had first met and had dinner with Bob not long before the speech, and when he sent me a message assuring me it was not a composite, I believed him.

So you take Woodward at his word about all this?

Absolutely. Over the past 30 years I've gotten to know Bob, and everything I know about him reeks of honesty and sincerity. I don't think he has ever lost his Midwestern values, and I can't imagine him playing games. He has staked his professional reputation on his reporting, and while other journalists carp, and complain about his use of unidentified sources, I believe he reports as accurately and candidly as humanly possible.

In your new book, "Unmasking Deep Throat," you write that you have relied on Woodward's honesty in figuring out who might be Deep Throat. Did you find anything in your research that might change your mind?

To the contrary. I was able to locate a copy of the unedited manuscript of "All The President's Men," which runs about 900 pages. It is probably twice as long as the published book ended up. Not only did I find clues about Deep Throat that for one reason or another did not make it into the book, I found many examples of both Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's candor -- like explaining who had undertaken various activities, and how it took time to develop what has now become their lifelong friendship. For anyone to not accept Woodward's information about Throat, in the manuscript, in the book and in his statements over the past two and half decades, would make searching for him futile. If Woodward has not been honest, it would make Deep Throat a hoax. I don't believe that is the case, and few have peeled apart his work like I have.

Is it important to know Deep Throat's identity? Isn't looking for him a little like being one of Richard Nixon's infamous Plumbers, the guys who hunted for leaks?

Fair question. Some of my former colleagues, like Leonard Garment, believe that Deep Throat has had a profound impact on American politics. Other knowledgeable people, like former Washington Post editor Barry Sussman, who had editorial supervision over most of Woodward's and Bernstein's Watergate reporting, feel that Deep Throat's information was so insubstantial that he added little to the Post's Watergate coverage. Both are correct. Deep Throat is important because he gave the managing editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee, the confidence to keep publishing one story after another about campaign improprieties that high officials at the White House and CRP kept denying. Throat also changed journalism -- he gave the unidentified source credibility.

But Deep Throat sleuthing, as I have been doing for many years, and report in the book, is nothing like the Plumbers' activities, which were undertaken fair or foul, and using wiretapping and break-ins to obtain information. While I find hunting for Throat entertaining, he obviously doesn't feel that way. For that reason, I've sought to be as fair as possible.

Next Page: How Throat got so much wrong, and why his leaks were not only ethical but required by government rules

• View blog reactions