"The whole thing would have blown up in their faces (think Dan Rather, and Newsweek!), and Nixon would have survived it.'
Actually this was pointed out years ago in the book "It Didn't Start With Watergate". I don't recall the author/s but they ACTUALLY COUNTED the anti administration headlines that had any bais in truth. A vanishing fraction of the stories the headlines represented were true, but the cumlative effect of all that "journalisim" was profound. Suffice it to say that in todays world Watergate would never have gotten traction.
Googled it: 'It Didn't Start With Watergate' by Victor Lasky, 11 bucks at Amazon
Just so. Most people trusted the news media back then. As it happens, back in prep school I had an English teacher who taught the class how to read news articles with a suspicious eye, and never to take anything on trust. Plus I have never had herd instincts anyway. So I could see through the garbage at the time, but most people couldn't. The basic method was banner headline after banner headline, day after day, saying that Nixon was a crook. Not many people tried to analyze what the actual substance of "Watergate" was, because they were overwhelmed by the headlines, like a herd of stampeding animals.