Historians critique sourcing in Woodward's book

STLtoday.com ^ | 4-25-04 | Harry Levins

[FairWitness]

Talk radio and cable news have eaten up hours in chewing over Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," debating its insider look at the decision-making before the war in Iraq - who said what, and when.

Less energy has been spent on a more basic issue: Can a book that reconstructs events without naming its sources be trusted as real history?

[FairWitness]

In the online edition of The New Republic last week, senior editor Gregg Easterbrook took a dark view of Woodward's technique. "Woodward and his editors have cheapened the quotation mark," Easterbrook wrote, "changing its meaning from 'what was said' to 'whatever sounds right.'"

Rules of attribution are for the little people, not for Bob "Watergate" Woodward.

[T'wit]

Woodward is talking to ghosts again?

[jocon307]

That Easterbrook, he's ok. Even though he is a liberal.

[DustyMoment]

Can a book that reconstructs events without naming its sources be trusted as real history?

No. Those books are called "fiction".

[TomGuy]

Hillary talks with Eleanor Roosevelt. Maybe Woodward talks with Thomas Jefferson or Franklin Roosevelt or Jonathan Edwards

[tioga]

I wouldn't waste my $$ on anything woodward writes.

[MinuteGal]

Woodward's critics are wasting their breath. He knows very well what kind of criticism he'll get when he tosses his books of unsourced, unattributed fantasy on the market. He doesn't care.

His genius lies in assessing perfectly the gullibility of those buying his books and the adulation, adoration and credence given him by the mainstream media droolers who give him a god-like aura. They consider him one of their own since they credit Woodstein with bringing down that arch-devil, President Nixon.

Woodward is no god, just clever. He springs from the same Chicago suburban county as I. I knew professionally his late father, a RINO circuit court judge in strongly conservative Republican county (Du Page). Not surprisingly, Judge Woodward spoke in the same monotonic, nerve-numbing manner as does his son.

Leni

[Terry Mross]

Woodward is just doing what made him and Bernstein famous - making up sources. I think "Deep Throat" is probably still alive and working in W's administration. After all, "fantasy sources" can live forever.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Worth noting that in a previous, controversial, Woodward book, used by the Democratic Party hacks at the Post to "get at" a hated Republican President, much of it was based, according to Woodward, with private interviews with hospitalized CIA Director William Casey.

There were only two problems with that:

1. Casey was, according to his doctors, in a coma at the time; and

2. Casey was, according to his daughter Bernadette, accompanied at all times by a family member or representative. None of whom ever saw hide nor hair of Woodward.

In other words, Veil, Woodward's Casey book, is a fabrication from cover to cover, and there is no reason to suppose that this new book is any different.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The relation between journalism and history is a serious topic.

Journalism exists in the fog of current events which - when it affects military commanders in battle - is known as "the fog of war." The deadline and the breaking story provide cover for the hipshot reporting of the journalist, but the historian does not have that excuse and should do better.

That is however not always the case. For example, historians agree that in the McCarthy era journalism was cowed into tolerating suppression of civil liberties. They can and do adduce proof in the form of contemporaneous reporting of that fact. But where journalism actually was intimidated (e.g., the USSR or Saddam's Iraq) the result is not reports of intimidation but silence. The reports upon which the historians rely are patently self-serving fabulations. Yet rely on them they do, to this very day.

IMHO this problem should be attacked by the expedient of choosing a target journalism outlet - I nominate The New York Times - and condemning it for having been cowardly during "the McCarthy Era." If we can smoke the Times out and make it defend itself, you will find that they will be able to do so very well - thereby essentially refuting the "McCarthyism" story.

[TomGuy]

There were only two problems with that:

1. Casey was, according to his doctors, in a coma at the time; and

2. Casey was, according to his daughter Bernadette, accompanied at all times by a family member or representative. None of whom ever saw hide nor hair of Woodward.

So?!?!!?

lol Where there's a will, there's a way:

[metesky]

Sam's Club is already discounting Plan Of Attack, as well as Mr. Clark's Against All Enemies, by about 1/3.

On to the remainder bin!

[Paladin2]

That's similar to the conclusion I just reached - Deep Throat never really existed.

[expatpat]

There's no question about Woodward's sourcing -- it's Deep Throat, of course.

[FairWitness]

historians agree that in the McCarthy era journalism was cowed into tolerating suppression of civil liberties. They can and do adduce proof in the form of contemporaneous reporting of that fact. But where journalism actually was intimidated (e.g., the USSR or Saddam's Iraq) the result is not reports of intimidation but silence. The reports upon which the historians rely are patently self-serving fabulations. Yet rely on them they do, to this very day.

Excellent point.

[Mike Darancette]

Here is the proof that Woodward's book didn't trash Bush sufficiently. Otherwise the Historians would have fawned.

[reformedliberal]

I have always believed that Deep Throat is just Woodward. He had a lot of dots/intuitions and no way to connect them to prove anything, so he invented Deep Throat as a fictional device.

I hope he has left a confession to be opened upon his death. He has said he will give the identity when DT dies.