Watergate marked a significant moment in the evolution of American politics. Its impact and legacy underscored the damage a political scandal could do, not only to individual political figures but also to the credibility of the political establishment as a whole. The stakes involved in the defence and prosecution of scandal politics were thereafter pronounced. This article focuses on the strategic battle to manage scandal revelations following their public disclosure. It addresses scandals in two genres, those concerning the abuse of political power and those based on questions of moral standing, normally involving acts of infidelity by political figures. Damage limitation strategies have changed since Watergate. In Iran–Contra the strategy of plausible deniability ensured that it was more challenging to link Reagan to specific aspects of policy management. In the contemporary period it has proven ever more difficult for those involved in scandal to control the media narrative, given the presence of indelible digital evidence and the largely unregulated online discussion of political action. Damage limitation has proven to be ever more difficult to enact. This article addresses the challenges now faced by those charged with wrongdoing and the changes that this has brought in the context of the control of evolving scandal narratives.
Robert Busby (Sun,) studied this question.