Woodward Talks about Deep Throat

[Pangloss]

Fascinating article in the Post today -- Bob Woodward's personal story about how he came to know Mark Felt, including his own story about how he came to work for the Post.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060102124.html

 

In a sense this is the story I've been waiting all week to read, really. Mark Felt's story is interesting. Bob Woodward's story is fascinating. My two bits' worth, anyway.

[j_p]

Do you really think so? There is very little that is new in it. And it doesn't seem particularly sincere.

With a story as enticing' date=' complex, competitive and fast-breaking as Watergate, there was little tendency or time to consider the motives of our sources. .... There was no time to ask why they were talking or whether they had an ax to grind.[/quote']

If that is true, he must have been impossibly naive. I had always assumed the source must have reasons additional to the obvious one of bringing down a corrupt administration, and that must have occurred to a Washington reporter.

 

I would find the paragraph more convincing if he had ended with, "What was important was whether the information checked out and whether it was true."

 

The naivite is contradicted by the understanding of subtle manipulation demonstrated further on:

we had speculated about Deep Throat and his piecemeal approach to providing information. Maybe it was to minimize his risk. Or because one or two big stories' date=' no matter how devastating, could be blunted by the White House. [/quote']

 

Come to think of it, the naivite is also contradicted in that very paragraph by ".. whether the information checked out and whether it was true.[emphasis mine]"

 

And he has not adressed two niggling issues:

Felt reportedly quit smoking decades earlier.

Information attributed to Deep Throat was also attributed to a White House Source.

 

One can easily conceive of innocent explanations for these apparent contradictions [e.g., using the information from DT, W&B elicited the information separately from a WH source], but one should not have to.

These contradictions should be explained, or W&B will be suspected of lies.

[Pangloss]

Oh I'm sure he's preparing a nice, long book on the subject, which he'll be more than happy to sell us for $13.95. And no doubt that will become his 13th number one bestseller.

 

But this was just a fluff piece; a personal reflection. Not a news story. Yes, I thought it was interesting, and I think you're looking too hard for trouble. Back up and enjoy the moment. It's not time to call Oliver Stone just yet.

 

And remember: Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar. ;-)

[j_p]

Looking for trouble? Really, I was just critiquing the article. I wasn't impressed; but then, the career-angst of unfocused ambitious young men isn't very interesting to me.

 

I do not think it would have been possible for him/them to have lied about anything significant about the Watergate investigation. No conspiracy theories here; but I think his stance, "Gee, we never thought of that" disingenuous, to say the least.

 

But the man has always annoyed me, I don't know why; I'll wait until I can get the book at the library.

[Ophiolite]

But the man has always annoyed me, I don't know why;.

Which rather suggests that your attack on the facts of the article is more an attack on the fact of Bob Woodward's existence.

You also find it peculiar that "Information attributed to Deep Throat was also attributed to a White House Source." How so? Reputable journalists will not publish a controversial piece unless they can get validation from at least two sources. One of the few occasions the Washington Post had to print a retraction in relation to Watergate was when, in their haste, Woodstein sloppily misinterpreted the comments of one source as confirmation of another.

[j_p]

Which rather suggests that your attack on the facts of the article is more an attack on the fact [/i']of Bob Woodward's existence.

Take that back.

 

I didn't attack any facts, I commented [unfavorably, that is true] on a statement, a tone, and a curious absence of specific facts. If I wanted to attack Bob Woodward I could do a much better job than this.

 

But perhaps you did not read my post as attentively as I would have wished.

 

You also find it peculiar ...[etc.'].

Well, no, not peculiar, [scans down to make sure did not use that word ...] but evasive. No-one is exactly fainiting from shock that Felt was DT; people have noted for years that Felt had access to all the information DT had, and that he had a non-disinterested reason for sharing the information. But Felt didn't smoke and didn't work at the White House.

 

Yes, Felt could have started chipping in secret during a period of great stress, and

..using the information from DT, W&B [could have'] elicited the information separately from a WH source...

[please note the source of the quote]

Innocent explanations are quite possible. However, given the overall disingenousness [if that is a word, it shouldn't be] of the article, I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I want these two points in particular addressed specifically.

 

For heaven's sake, are we suppose to believe that even Ben Bradley had "little tendency or time to consider the motives of our source"? That is absolutely silly!

[Pangloss]

Well I wouldn't have followed Ophiolite's lead. But you did attack Woodward, not just the story.

 

Do you really think so? There is very little that is new in it. And it doesn't seem particularly sincere.

 

If that is true' date=' he must have been impossibly naive.

...

The naivite is contradicted by the understanding of subtle manipulation demonstrated further on:

[/quote']

 

Sounds like a little axe-grinding to me. As I said, it was a fluff piece, not a news story.

 

But I don't have a problem with you challenging Woodward's assertions and the issues at hand, whether or not the story has been completely revealed, and whether Woodward has been sincere. By all means. Blind acceptance is not in my repertoire either.

 

FWIW, Bradlee made a comment on "This Week" Sunday along the lines of regretting the fact that he didn't ask for DT's identity earlier in the process. I thought it was interesting, and I imagine you do as well.

[j_p]

Well I wouldn't have followed Ophiolite's lead. But you did attack Woodward' date=' not just the story.

 

Sounds like a little axe-grinding to me.[/quote']

 

Phaugh, Woodward's mother wouldn't find that a personal attack. Really, I have no ax to grind with him; I've always admired what he achieved.

 

Did you read Noth's column in Slate? I don't even think that was a personal attack. But he did reference the 1979 Playboy interview:

 

[abbreviate quote for reference]

Woodward:...

But let me just say that this suggestion that we were being used by the intelligence community was of concern to us at the time and afterward.

 

I am not presenting this as a direct contradiction of his more recent statement, but in defense of my position.

 

FWIW, Bradlee made a comment on "This Week" Sunday along the lines of regretting the fact that he didn't ask for DT's identity earlier in the process. I thought it was interesting, and I imagine you do as well.

 

I think it's really funny [i am usually not so cruel; this is [i]Schadenfreude[/i]]. Talk about a tiger by the tail.

 

An incredibly important story, about incredibly important events. Not just a career maker/breaker, but something that would get your name in the history books.

And he finds out the primary source is not only tainted, but one of the most powerful men in the country.

After he's gone too far to quietly back away.

 

I'm not surprised he wished he'd known sooner, but I'm glad he didn't. They might not have pursued the story so agressively.

 

I wonder if Bradlee's wasn't responsible for how slowly the story unfolded; he must have been aware of how much the paper's credibility would have suffered had Felt's involvement been know before the extent of the corruption.