“I knew we had enemies, but I didn't know we were this popular.”
Why it's great
It dresses a pile-on as popularity, turning grim humor into defiance.
Register
Informal
Use it yourself
I knew the plan was bold, but I didn't know we were this popular.
00:00 / 03:38
00:00 / 03:38
White House Attacks the Post, Explained
All the President's Men · 1976
Chapter 18 of 18 · 3'38"
Sloan denies naming Haldeman, and the White House returns fire, calling the Post's reporting "shabby journalism". Then Bernstein and Woodward phone a source, pressing him to confirm or deny — and he goes silent, cold. The real question stops being whether the story is right and becomes whether they've been set up.
Key moments
Start here, then watch the full scene- 0:40–2:07
❝ Monologue · 9 lines White House Goes After the Post
87s
White House Attacks the Post, explained
What happens
Sloan gives a deposition and flatly denies ever naming Haldeman, while at the White House the press secretary and campaign manager tear into the Washington Post for "shabby journalism" and a "double standard". Later, Woodward and Bernstein call a source who stonewalls them and swears at them, leaving the reporters to wonder if they've been set up.
What's really going on
The White House response isn't really about a single inaccurate sentence — it's a pressure campaign aimed at the whole story. Ziegler calls it "shabby journalism" and MacGregor invokes a "celebrated double standard", both trying to make the Post itself the issue rather than what the Post found. The phone call is the scene's real gut punch: a source who once fed the reporters information now won't even be seen with them, snapping that he "can't even be seen talking to either one of you bastards". That reversal — "Are we being set up?" — turns the investigation inward. The reporters' working assumption, that sources can be leaned on, collapses; from here they can't tell a planted lie from an honest lead.
Key lines & what they mean
- “I knew we had enemies, but I didn't know we were this popular.”
- Bradlee's dry joke: the flood of attacks means the reporting is hitting something real.
- “If we made a mistake, we'll come off the story.”
- Bernstein offers to retract the story — a test: if the source denies it, they'll pull it.
- “I can't even be seen talking to either one of you bastards.”
- The source refuses to be linked to the reporters at all, even by sight — he's cutting them off.
- “The hallmark of the Post's campaign is hypocrisy...”
- MacGregor frames the Post's reporting as a deliberate, dishonest campaign rather than journalism.
Theme
- Power — The White House uses its authority and its press office to discredit the reporters rather than answer what they found.
- Deception — A source's denial makes the reporters suspect the whole leak was a setup, blurring who is lying to whom.
What this chapter teaches
Teaching points
Review right after watchingMy level1/8
A1–C2 is the CEFR scale. Cards above the level you pick fade, and playback will not auto-pause on them.
Language points
Click a card to jump to its moment in the videoGolden lines
A great line in its own right — why and how to use it“If we made a mistake, we'll come off the story.”
Why it's great
It states the newsroom's rule in one breath: if wrong, the story comes down.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
If we made a mistake, we'll publish a correction.
“I can't even be seen talking to either one of you bastards.”
Why it's great
It shows the fear is total: not unwilling to help, but unable to be seen near them.
Register
Informal
Use it yourself
I can't even be seen meeting you this week.
“The hallmark of the Post's campaign is hypocrisy...”
Why it's great
It brands the whole campaign in one word, turning a list of complaints into a verdict.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
The hallmark of this team is honesty.
Monologue
One character carrying the scene — shadow the whole passage❝ MacGregor's counterattack
MacGREGOR: Using innuendo, third-person hearsay... ...unsubstantiated charges, anonymous sources... ...and huge scare headlines... ...the Post has maliciously sought to give the appearance... ...of a direct connection between the White House and the Watergate... ...a charge which the Post knows... ...and half a dozen investigations have found, to be false. The hallmark of the Post's campaign is hypocrisy... ...and its celebrated double standard is today visible for all to see.
The stacked list of charges builds like a drumroll, painting the press itself as the conspiracy.
Takeaways
What you walk away with- Come off the story means to drop it if wrong.
- A double standard is uneven justice.
- The source turns cold to avoid being seen.
- Ziegler praises a free press and attacks it at once.
People also search
Questions, then the linesWhy does the source refuse to talk to Woodward and Bernstein?
He's scared. Being seen with the reporters could tie him to the leak, so he denies everything and warns that he can't even be seen talking to them. His refusal is less a denial than a signal that someone has leaned on him.
Are Woodward and Bernstein actually being set up?
That's what the reporters fear. After the source denies the grand-jury story, Bernstein suggests there was no mistake — meaning the earlier tip may have been planted to make the Post print something false.
Why does the White House attack the Post instead of answering the story?
Because attacking the messenger is easier than addressing the message. Ziegler and MacGregor call the reporting "shabby journalism" and a "double standard" to cast doubt on the Post itself.
What does "come off the story" mean?
"Come off the story" is newsroom jargon for pulling back a story — dropping it or withdrawing from the reporting. Bernstein offers to do exactly that if the source can prove they got it wrong.
Who is Sloan and why does his denial matter?
Sloan is a campaign official whose testimony denied linking Haldeman to the fund. The Post had reported that he named Haldeman, so his denial makes their story look wrong — and makes them suspect a setup.