Posted on 11/21/2005 4:53:21 AM PST by shortstop
Bob Woodward is one of the most admired reporters in the world, so it was particularly disappointing to learn that for two years he withheld important information about the CIA leak investigation that led to the indictment of Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
It appears Woodward may have been the first reporter to learn the identity of Valerie Plame, a former covert employee of the Central Intelligence Agency and wife of administration critic Joseph Wilson. Yet during special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year investigation into whether Plame's identity had been revealed illegally, Woodward kept mum, except to criticize the prosecutor's work.
Like other Beltway reporters, he feared the case would chill the anonymous flow of information, which has become the rule rather than the exception in Washington.
The best-selling author, whose reporting for The Washington Post during the Watergate scandal three decades ago helped bring down a president and inspired countless young people to become journalists, let down his colleagues, editors and readers.
The first duty of a reporter is to tell people what's going on. On this, Woodward failed miserably. Instead of reporting the news, he hid it.
Woodward apologized, but his actions are hard to forgive, especially since he has shown that he is not the neutral observer he has famously tried to be.
He says he didn't talk because he didn't want to be subpoenaed; he had a source to protect. But what his actions reveal is that Woodward is willing to filter the news to ensure continued access to powerful people.
Woodward's long-held silence lends support to critics who say he has grown too chummy with power. He has become a Washington player rather than a Washington reporter. Newspaper readers have to wonder what else he's holding back.
Woodward needs to decide whether he's a book author or a newspaper reporter. So long as his ID card identifies him as the latter, his first responsibility is to telling readers the whole story.
The leadership of the Washington Post should know and demand better. Leonard Downie Jr., the paper's executive editor, has said Woodward should not have publicly criticized Fitzgerald and should have come forward sooner with what he knew.
But Downie also insists that Woodward had a noble purpose -- that in protecting his source, he was protecting the news-gathering process.
Maybe, but had Woodward talked with his editors, the news-gathering process on the Plame story may have changed. Had he talked, it might have affected prosecutor Fitzgerald's decision to indict.
Once again the nation has seen a star reporter run amok. Once again, the nation has seen how Beltway reporters operate under different standards from those at community newspapers. And once again, the nation has watched a good newspaper gamble its credibility on a franchise player.
This statement is pure BS:
"Duty to his readers to report what he knew....."
Newspapers and other print media have "budget" meetings.
The discuss and the editor decides what will be printed and how - or what will not be printed.
Anyone with any journalistic experience at all knows this.
They also do this at NPR and PBS and the broadcast networks and cable networks.
Political agendas are molded and shaped to fit the leftist agendas - except at the few conservative media outlets where a more balance exists.
Somewhere I have some audiotapes of some hot & juicy "budget meetings" that will stand your hair on end.
The problem that the media has with Bob Woodward is that he requested and got free and honest access to President GW Bush in the White House in his first term.
Woodward will not turn on or betray GW because he was treated fairly and Bush trusted him.
This the MSM can not handle.....
The media had better wise up or they are in for a long hard road - and they will be exposed in court as fools and liars and forgers and frauds.
Those who have not already been so exposed.....
Woodward is revealing that he is an unreliable POS, and he has been one for decades.
Thanks for the ping!
Bingo!
No, YOUR line of thinking doesn't confirm JACK! It wasn't the WH contacting anybody in the press, and you "concerted effort" theory is FOS, nice try!
Didn't one of the major news organizations get caught doing this also? Thought they held back news of Iraq so they could remain in good graces with Saddam and keep their office open over there, and as they said "so that people wouldn't be killed".
Do you think that Fitzgerald's line of questioning would have been different? Would Libby still have been put in a position to make potentially contradictory statements if Fitzgerald already knew that another government official was the first to speak Plame's name? Don't you think that Libby might have been asked about the other government official? Do you think that Fitzgerald would have kept completely quiet on Woodward, or might he have asked Libby if he meant Woodward when he said Russert, or might have been more understanding if Libby corrected himself and said he meant Woodward?
There are all sorts of "what if's" about how the Libby testimony might have played out if Woodward had informed Fitzgerald in a timely manner.
-PJ
Pithy and right on the mark.What hypocrites.
I'm not clear on how reporters have an obligation to report everything they know. But I do believe Woodward had an obligation to come forward when Libby was indicted. Woodward claims that he talked to his source after the indictment. Who knows?
Oh well, back to the old Selectric.
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.