Okay. Now, I’m down on both of these hacks.
I was willing to think Bernstein had a bit more on the ball than his former cohort, but apparently he’s been at the trough far too long as well, playing both sides in order to stay afloat.
Check this from Editor & Publisher:
Bernstein said he found out about the story on Tuesday when Woodward called him to tell him. “He called me, and told me what was going on. We both expected there would be criticism as well as internal angst [at the Post].”
He also said he had known about Woodward’s testimony “within the last couple of days.” When asked if he knew the identity of Woodward’s source, he said, “I’m not going to get into that.”
Wanna bet he knows, too?
He went on to say:
“The most important thing to understand about Bob is that we know more about the last seven presidencies because Woodward did the hard work that other reporters don’t do,” he said. “That is what needs to be kept in mind here more than any other fact. The real test is Bob’s work. I think that when the next book comes out on the Bush presidency, about the war, it will be a hell of a book.
Another one who doesn’t know what ‘hard work’ truly is. And if he does manage to publish this book, I’m sure he has to write an apologia about his own actions in this mess–if anyone cares to read it.
“But I think that part of this criticism stems from people who want his work to be something that it’s not, more heavily conclusory or interpretative. It has to do with some people who have felt that for a while.”
I call b-s on that one.
People have been critical of Woodward’s work because he claims some special access to the powers-to-be in order to set the record straight …or right. Special, hermetically-sealed access doesn’t make it so straight or so right. It makes it suspect, because it plays to a belief (or hope) that our leaders have our best interests. Or worse, that these guys are stronger, better-suited to leadership or are patriotic or likeable. The mainstream success of the books spoke to an America that wanted to believe this. It extended Woodward’s fifteen minutes of fame that came with his and Bernstein’s Watergate stories.
It’s made a reporter, Woodward, into nothing less than a courtier and a power player, not a member of a press that is expected to be critical when called upon, paticularly during times of indecision or doubt, to provide facts and information to the citizenry. A press is supposed to make us think out of the box, not wallow within it.
As for Bernstein, it looks as if he wants to continue to make money, too. He did assist Woodward with his latest book about his relationship with the aging Mark Felt, who outted himself recently as Deep Throat. But Felt’s story too is increasingly Woodward’s now that Felt is in his nineties and may not last the decade, much less the year. It’s Woodward’s story to tell…and sell. How much Bernstein has to do with this in the future is debatable.
Bernstein’s stock has not recovered since his personal life imploded in the early Eighties. He has ghost/written bios and played gatekeeper to a certain audience on top of writing the odd left-leaning article. He is not, however, in the same league as Woodward and not just because he has ‘sold out.’ Rather, he is engaging in the same strategies that got him started in journalism: play everything and everybody. He’s pretty much a hustler. He’s worn many, many hats–openly. But apparently he’s not as veiled, devious or as adversarial (defending his meal ticket, the status quo) as his former partner.
Bernstein also pointed out that Woodward’s reluctance to come forward before was out of a desire to protect his source, whose identity remains unknown. “This is about protecting sources, that is the first obligation and he did that,” Bernstein said.
Unfortunately, Carl, this is a different time than the early 1970s. This time reporters are seen as enablers of government: Robert Novak, Judy Miller, and now Bob Woodward. And when it comes to letting the same kinds of people–some of whom were part of the Nixon Administration during Watergate (Cheney and Rumsfeld, for instance) to get away with murder, excuses won’t wash. The same standards cannot be bent over the years as easily as people.
Bernstein declined to comment on whether Woodward should have informed Downie sooner or how his actions might have affected the Post’s reporting of the Plame story: “The internal questions about the Washington Post, I’ll leave that to them. It is much easier to stand on the sidelines than be in the middle of something. …
When asked about Woodward’s refusal to be interviewed by other Post reporters on this story, he said “I’m sure at some point, Bob will make himself available. Now is not the time to do it, for all kinds of reasons.”
Uhuh, right. Like dodging possible legal entanglements, like facing a subpoena? Too bad it can’t be for obstruction of justice.
