Sy Hersh

Sy Hersh appears in the account as a New York Times reporter whose investigations tracked Watergate beyond the original break-in. His reporting followed the grand jury’s shift toward possible obstruction of justice, examined the network of people and money around the political operations, and later reached into the White House’s treatment of national-security leaks. As the Post and the administration contested the meaning of new disclosures, Hersh’s work showed how reporting at another newspaper could add evidence and widen the public story.

Identity and Reporting Role

The book gives little biographical detail about Hersh; it identifies him through his reporting for the New York Times. His work appears alongside that of the Washington Post’s reporters, sometimes covering the same developing story from a separate newsroom. This parallel coverage mattered as Watergate moved from an account of a botched break-in toward an inquiry into whether officials had obstructed justice and how far political operations reached.

The two newspapers did not simply repeat one another. The Post’s Watergate reporting could be neglected by other major outlets or met chiefly with denials, while the Times published its own accounts of the developing investigation. Hersh’s reports supplied a distinct strand of coverage, and their presence in the Times helped make the expanding inquiry harder to treat as a dispute belonging to one newspaper alone.

From the Break-In to Obstruction

In its April 19 edition, the Times reported that Attorney General Richard Kleindienst had disqualified himself from handling the case amid persistent reports that three or more of his colleagues might be indicted. Hersh reported that the grand-jury inquiry had shifted emphasis from the Watergate bugging itself to obstruction of justice by administration officials believed to be involved in the cover-up. The change in emphasis enlarged the stakes: the question was no longer only who had carried out the surveillance, but whether officials had tried to impede the investigation afterward.

The same account said John Dean was prepared to implicate others if he were indicted. A few days later, as Watergate coverage accumulated, Hersh was also reporting that the grand jury was examining the transfer involving H. R. Haldeman, Gordon Strachan, and Fred LaRue, as well as the possibility that Haldeman had received wiretap transcripts. The inquiry’s reach therefore extended from campaign arrangements to the movement of money and the possible circulation of intercepted communications. These were investigative lines and reported possibilities, not findings of guilt.

Reporting on White House Leak Investigations

Hersh’s coverage also reached beyond the immediate Watergate investigation. When the Washington Post was preparing a report based on information from FBI sources concerning Henry Kissinger’s role in identifying some aides as possible leakers, the editors held publication for a day amid uncertainty about the information and concern that it might redirect blame. Hersh had the story. The next day, he reported in the Times that Kissinger had played a role in identifying some of his aides as possible sources of leaks; the Post published its own account a day later.

The episode placed Hersh’s reporting within a second, connected controversy: the Nixon administration’s investigation of news leaks and its treatment of officials suspected of providing information to the press. The Post’s delay reflected the difficulty of assessing information that could alter the distribution of responsibility, while the Times publication established that another newsroom was pursuing the same lead. The account records the reporting sequence, but does not establish that Hersh’s story resolved the underlying dispute.

Significance in the Developing Story

Hersh’s role is defined less by a personal arc than by the reach and timing of his reporting. His accounts connected the grand jury’s changing focus, possible obstruction, questions about Haldeman and campaign-linked transfers, and the separate investigation of leaks. In each instance, Watergate became more than a single criminal episode: it appeared as a widening inquiry into how political operations, government officials, and attempts to control information intersected.

The Times’s reporting also altered the conditions in which the Post’s work was received. Independent accounts could corroborate that a story was being pursued beyond the Post and could bring additional elements of the investigation before readers. Hersh thus figures as a significant reporter in the book’s account of Watergate’s expansion, even though the evidence offered here does not provide a fuller portrait of his background, methods, or private character.