Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historians critique sourcing in Woodward's book
STLtoday.com ^ | 4-25-04 | Harry Levins

Posted on 04/25/2004 6:17:52 AM PDT by FairWitness

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:37:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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?


(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bobwoodward; bookreview; districtofcolumbia; planofattack; washingtoncompost; washingtonpost; woodward; woodwardbook
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.

1 posted on 04/25/2004 6:17:54 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Woodward is talking to ghosts again?
2 posted on 04/25/2004 6:24:50 AM PDT by T'wit (There's no evidence "Bush lied." But I can PROVE Bill Clinton told the truth -- once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
That Easterbrook, he's ok. Even though he is a liberal.
3 posted on 04/25/2004 6:31:03 AM PDT by jocon307 (The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

No. Those books are called "fiction".
4 posted on 04/25/2004 6:35:09 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Hillary talks with Eleanor Roosevelt. Maybe Woodward talks with Thomas Jefferson or Franklin Roosevelt or Jonathan Edwards
5 posted on 04/25/2004 6:44:18 AM PDT by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
I wouldn't waste my $$ on anything woodward writes.
6 posted on 04/25/2004 6:45:30 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness; prairiebreeze
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

7 posted on 04/25/2004 6:52:23 AM PDT by MinuteGal (You Haven't Lived Until You've Cruised! Sign up for FReeps Ahoy now. A Cabin for Every Budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga
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.
8 posted on 04/25/2004 6:54:17 AM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
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

9 posted on 04/25/2004 6:57:06 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
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.


10 posted on 04/25/2004 6:58:07 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Homepage is where the (political) heart is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
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:


11 posted on 04/25/2004 7:03:35 AM PDT by TomGuy (Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
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!

12 posted on 04/25/2004 7:05:09 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
That's similar to the conclusion I just reached - Deep Throat never really existed.
13 posted on 04/25/2004 7:23:04 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Stop Jihad Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: FairWitness
There's no question about Woodward's sourcing -- it's Deep Throat, of course.
15 posted on 04/25/2004 7:36:30 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
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.

16 posted on 04/25/2004 8:21:37 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Here is the proof that Woodward's book didn't trash Bush sufficiently. Otherwise the Historians would have fawned.
17 posted on 04/25/2004 9:08:15 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (General - Alien Army of the Right (AAOTR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2; Terry Mross
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.
18 posted on 04/25/2004 9:49:20 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson