via Gawker
THE GRAPHIC above is from Gawker, with John Wood doing a massive take down of Bob Woodward, who is getting pilloried by the press and established journalists.
The graphic is apt, because Woodward went out on a limb and his colleagues sawed it off.
Wood also goes back over Woodward’s career, including the Watergate tale, which I dissected here. People also shouldn’t forget how Woodward tried to sell one of his books using the whopper that Hillary was headed for a switch with Joe Biden. I quote a State Department and Hillaryland insider in my book on just how accurate that was at the time.
Here’s the key graph of Wood’s piece, with the emails once read painting a wholly different picture than Woodward claimed when he squealed that he’d been threatened.
Original Document: “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today… I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.
Woodward’s Contemporaneous Understanding: “You do not ever have to apologize to me…. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice.”
Woodward’s Subsequent Reporting on the Content of the Document: “It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this… It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters ‘You will regret’ doing something that you believe in.’”
It’s not so much that the White House took out after Woodward in some sort of veiled threat, but that Woodward could think that the email from Gene Sperling was anything close to what he painted it.
The Washington press elite did everything but laugh at Woodward’s assertion. From Dylan Byer’s of Politico, whose post is titled “Press corps to Woodward: Really?”
“I get emails like this almost every hour, whether it’s from the White House or Capitol Hill,” said Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director and senior White House correspondent. “For better or worse, flacks get paid to push back.”
[...] “If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White House for four years — received emails like this,” Fox News host Bret Baier said on Andrea Tantaro’s radio show today. “It was a cordial exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day.”
“I’m not saying the White House doesn’t pressure reporters all the time and put the heat on reporters covering the White House. I’ve heard many, many stories that they do,” Baier continued. “But this particular incident and this particular email, I’m not sure that characterizing it as a threat — I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do about that characterization.”
Harold Maass, the online executive editor of The Week, likewise noted on Twitter that “the email that scared [Woodward] was sort of cordial.” Outside the Beltway, Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget even wrote a post titled, “Oh, Please, The White House Didn’t ‘Threaten’ Bob Woodward.”
So where did Bob Woodward go last night? He went running to Sean Hannity. Nothing else need be said, because a lot can be said by Hannity, but his number one claim to infamy is that he’s a spokesman for the hard right and the Obama haters.
There should be more conversations about the way the presidents club treats press access, the lack of transparency and access to hard interviews with any presidential administration, but what it turns out that Bob Woodward did does nothing but strengthen the hand of the White House.
As for Bob Woodward’s reputation, the revelations over Deep Throat and the red flag didn’t help, especially when Ben Bradlee admitted his own skepticism, but the last few years has left it in shambles.
UPDATE: Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller wrote “Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played),” which is representative of the reactions from many conservatives once the verbatim text of the emails between Sperling and Woodward were released. TPM reported some of the conservative tweets.
Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson: Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the “not a threat” camp.
Byron York @ByronYork After reading Sperling-Woodward email, it’s nowhere close to a threat. Agree with @mattklewis: People who made big deal of this got played.
Brit Hume ✔ @brithume On one hand, only Woodward can say if he felt threatened by WH email. On the other, hard to imagine feeling threatened by Gene Sperling.
Keith Urbahn @keithurbahn Vintage Woodward: Cherry-pick a friendly exchange, make it sinister & vault himself into the media. Did it with Rummy in State of Denial.
I think you should expand your newsgathering sources. Woodword calls it as he sees it. This is the second time Woodward called out the Obama administration and made them look bad. Now “team Obama” is making themselves look even worse. It is not a good idea to attack the press, even when the press is on your side.
[Candy] Crowley was incredulous at what Obama’s transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was saying about sequester-caused air travel nightmares.
Even with the budget cuts, she said, the FAA will have “$500 million more than 2008, (when) the planes were running just fine,” adding, “surely there must be things inside the FAA budget where you can get rid of 4%.”
NBC’s David Gregory was surprisingly skeptical, too, asking LaHood if he actually believed “Americans think that government can’t tighten up a bit.”
CBS :”Did the Whitehouse Cross the Line With Bob Woodward” http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50141892n
Matt Lauer interviews Bob Woodward: http://www.today.com/video/today/51003533/#51003533
White House threat: Democratic Lanny Davis says he was threatened too: http://tinyurl.com/cfatp8o
“Woodward calls it as he sees it.” That’s the way you describe a man 24hrs after he is caught in a naked lie? LOL!
Another thing, you should pay attention to what Mr. Woodward says on Fox compared to what he says on MSNBC compared to what he says on CNN! What the man says depends on what outlet he is on! On MorningJoe this morning he denied that he said that he felt threatened but on Hannity last night he said the threat was coded.
Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller writes: “Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)”
Erick Erickson tweeted: “Ok wow. Finally read the email to Woodward. I must now move to the “not a threat” camp.”
Byron York tweeted: “After reading Sperling-Woodward email, it’s nowhere close to a threat. Agree with @mattklewis: People who made big deal of this got played.”
Brit Hume tweeted: “On one hand, only Woodward can say if he felt threatened by WH email. On the other, hard to imagine feeling threatened by Gene Sperling.”
Keith Urbahn tweeted: “Vintage Woodward: Cherry-pick a friendly exchange, make it sinister & vault himself into the media. Did it with Rummy in State of Denial.”
Check their Twitter feed or TPM for the graphic of the tweets.
The point isn’t that the White House doesn’t push back. All of them do. It’s whether Gene Sperling’s emails were actually any threat at all, which is a laughable assertion.
Let’s also remember that Bob Woodward sits in very rarified air space. Anyone asserting that he can be threatened & than person will get away with it is ignorant about the power of the Washington Post.
But again, we need more access & transparency, hard interviews with the Obama administration. But in a second term it’s not like today’s White House is acting any differently than any member of the presidents club does.
The Bob Woodward of today is not the same Woodward from Watergate days. Woodward has become just another self promoter who is all about selling himself and his books.
From legend to laughingstock!
That’s the headline.
Woodward has become a media w_ore in his old age. I guess he hasn’t been getting enough attention lately. Does he have a new book coming out or something that he wants to hype?
Heya ladywalker, don’t these guys have *the* thinnest skin!
THere are many in the press that are questioning if Woodward was threatened. There is the, for lack of a more apropiate term, “Obama press’, that is trying to laugh off the comment “regret staking out that claim.” as a peice of friendly advice. There are also conservative people in the press that just do not like Woodward. There are also some people who will never reach the levels of their chosen prefession as Woodward has. The much talked about “Mike Schmidt tweet” is a good example of someone trying to knock Woodward down in order to bring themselves up.
Yes there are people in the press who are critical of Bob Woodward over his claim that he was threatened. I think Woodward was right to say he felt threatend, I believe him. THis seems to be consistant with ther reports of people, even Jimmy Fallon, who had been contacted by people from the White House team regarding critical statements made of President Obama.
To say “the entire political press” is laughing at Woodward is clearly a false statement. For Woodward to say he felt threatened is something that he can only know the truth of. Did he really feel threatened? Hard to say, I will have to rely on his word. Is Obama concerned about his image regarding the sequestration? Yes, very much so. There are too many published polls presented as news stories regarding this to think otherwise.
In other words you chose to believe Mr. Woodward’s lies because they fit into your general anti-Obama sensibilities!
I take what he says at his word, because only he know whether or not he felt threatened. If it was a misunderstanding, I can accept that too. It appears that more liberal journalists are coming out now revealing the same story. Lanny Davis tells of his personal account that is very similar to Woodward’s and the intimidation in the Davisstory much more clear.
Solo- in other words, I chose to believe Woodward because te evidnce is clear in the email. I also chose to believe Woodward because it is consistant with other stories other people have that say the exact same thing.
So I can tell you must have not read the emails which show clearly that there wasn’t anything close to a threat. Woodward made some claims that were just not true, and he got caught at it.
I know you don’t like the President, and are always looking for something to bash him with, but this is not one of them. Woodward has become a self promoting blowhard, not the good reporter he once was.
What complete total nonsense!
“THere are many in the press that are questioning if Woodward was threatened.”
This is as factual and reality based as when the creationist/ID liars say there is controversy regarding Scientists accepting of the Theory of Evolution as the ONLY supported by ALL the evidence and testy explanation of the process that produced the diversity of life past and present.
In other words the ONLY people questioning whether this aging troll(see…he evolved…or devolved anyway) are wingnuts after reading the actual e mail exchange.
seculardelriuminezedpollutter – what the hell are you talking about?
It stands to reason that anyone mentioning reality would draw a blank from you. Frankly that sez just about all anyone would need to know about the value to place on your “opinion” or spin on this pearl clutching act by Woodward.
Let’s see… We’ve got Erick Erickson, Matt Lewis, Brit Hume, Byron York who represent Red State, Daily Caller, Fox News hierarchy, and Byron York of Fox, and the Washington Examiner.
Additionally, we’ve got Brett Baier, Chuck Todd and others scoffing at the notion that Gene Sperling threatened him.
“The entire political press world” is pretty much in agreement, especially when you go wide and consider outsiders.
We’ve also got Woodward HIMSELF stating in the video above that “threatened” was the wrong word. But it’s pretty hard to back away given his own mischaracterization of the conversation.
“I never have, you know that… No, I did not feel threatened–” – Bob Woodward
He basically retracted his own mischaracterization, repackaging it as it’s no way for the White House to act.
Woodward has been revealed as the activist he’s become. This is clearly bothering him and will continue to do so, because the guy actually cares about what people say about him, especially when they nail him for hubris, self-centered reporting that makes *him* the story.
To say that he did not feel threatened but decided to come out and say he did, is dishonest and wrong. I am not a big Bob Woodward fan.I do recognize that the is very smart and well accomplished.
He could of said that he felt threatened at the time he read the email, then after clarification, realized that it was a simple misunderstanding. Things like that happen. Woodward did not do that. He said he did not feel it was a threat after he made repeated statements that he did feel that way.
To say you are threatened like that is a very serious issue. Now I look silly trying to stick up for him. That’ll teach me to stick up for someone in the liberal media.
Good god man! how many hoops are you going to try to jump threw? If you had read the emails you would see that you would have to be brain dead to come to the conclusion that no matter how you read them you could find a threat there.
Woodward tried to manufacture a story between himself and the white house, and got caught in his own bullshit…End of story.
As Sec would say bwahahahahahahaha!! Liberal Media? No and No. There is no “Liberal Media” and Woody is a freaking Republican, so wrong on both counts. Woody is as inside the beltway, hermetically sealed in the bubble as you can get. He is the Establishment in all caps. A more faithful sycophant scribe you will not find unless you reach back to the toddies who surrounded the Sun King Louis XIV. He serves power, he serves himself, he has no Liberal.
He angled for the honor of carrying Obama piss-pot but the deal fell through for reasons obscure. Some think is that he just could not perform his usual roll because he objected to Obama as an illegitimate arriviste who had not paid the proper DC dues. His over-the-top response to typical Executive Office push back does have the flavor of a scorned courtier. Or he can just be flogging his book, an anti-Obama screed that blames Barack for the collapse of the Grand Bargain. Just up your ally M.J. Wait a few months to buy it, off the discount rack for $5.95.
“The Bob Woodward of today is not the same Woodward from Watergate days.”
And, that Woodward from the Watergate days was “self-serving” and “exaggerated” (as documented below) first in his (and Bernstein’s) book and then in the film “All the President’s Men”.
By all reliable accounts, “All the President’s Men” was and is not a comprehensive book about Watergate.
The book as written had them at the center of the story as it was mostly about them and their “crusade”. It was played (in both the book & film) as though Woodward (and Bernstein) saved the country and it was they or in combo with the WaPo were the sole discoverers of the truth about Watergate and it was they who finally made Nixon resign. Actually, it was the work of law enforcement officials and then the Watergate Hearings in Congress that finally put the kibosh on Nixon’s “reign”. It was only after being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed in Congress to impeach him that Nixon decided to resign.
For a truly definitive history of the scandal, I would recommend “The Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon by Stanley Kutler. http://tinyurl.com/c9ka6u4
Here are some excerpts:
“As more documentary materials are released,” Kutler wrote, “the media’s role in uncovering Watergate diminishes in scope and importance. Television and newspapers publicized the story and, perhaps, even encouraged more diligent investigation. But it is clear that as Watergate unfolded from 1972 to 1974, media revelations of crimes and political misdeeds repeated what was already known to properly constituted investigative authorities. In short, carefully timed leaks, not media investigations, provided the first news of Watergate.”
“Local Washington reporting, especially in the Post, closely tracked the FBI’s work, relying primarily on raw Bureau reports. The Woodward and Bernstein account placing the pair at the center of the scandal, was self-serving and exaggerated, part of the press excessive claims for its role. They regularly ignored or minimized the work of law enforcement officials to focus on those parts of the story that were leaked to them.”
And, finally, this from the Washington Monthly by Ed Kilgore, “Woodward Outfoxes Himself”:
http://tinyurl.com/d48ehx3
“Why on earth would he talk about “threats” when he knew infallibly it wasn’t true and wouldn’t stand the light of day? Was it because he figured his new right-wing fans wouldn’t care whether it was true or not? Or is because something funny happens to a person’s sense of perspective once he’s been played by Robert Redford in a movie and has been told repeatedly he saved his country?”
Back to my comments. Woodward’s 15 minutes was up 40 years ago.
That graphic of him posted by Taylor is now a definitive portrait of this self-promoting, lying dipshit clown. So glad he finally got himself caught in the cookie jar. Boo freakin hoo.
The worm is definitely turning on the whole snafu when you have members of the Fox crew questioning the legitimacy of the Big Bad Wolf threat. The email is innocuous at best but oh noes, it’s now written in code.
I really hate defending POTUS and his crew but Woodward has made himself the fool in this round. Has POTUS played the press in the past? Without a doubt. Have they applied pressure? I’m sure they have, probably taken a lesson or two from Dick Cheney. But Woodward must need a hug or have a book coming out to use this ploy for attention. I have noticed Woodward seems very oriented to the deficit hawkishness side of things–Cuts to Save the World [unless it's defense or all things military--get that carrier online or it's madness].
This is more pathetic theater for the peanut gallery. And Rome still burns.
This story strikes me as stereotypical behavior for the DC press these days – get a story’s analysis completely wrong, then complain when someone in authority tries to correct it.
There are good reporters on that beat, but they’re pretty rare. Far more of them are pampered clowns like Woodward.
Just a reminder, I guess it’s my timing. My comment in this thread is awaiting moderation. Thanks again in advance for releasing my post.
Unleash the Kraken! Free NewDealDem!!
)
Hey spin, like Blanche Dubois, “I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers.”
I adore rum, so being compared to that delightful spirit is enchanté.
Your request is my accommodation, spin. I’ll “unleash”, uh, re-post my comment below, although I had that in mind before reading your love note.
“Unleash the Karken! Free NewDealDem!!”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are dead to me, heathen.
Btw, spin, just in case, I thought your comment was humorous. I have a very dry sense of humor so it may not always come across that way. Also, I don’t have a thin skin. I was born that way.
Even one as dense as Moi got that NDD….one time my wife and I had gone out to dine and I inadvertently overheard at a table a couple of tables over from us a mature couple quietly but earnestly talking…the woman said ‘so I’m the only one angry here?! Well YOU’RE DEAD TO ME!” The man responded “I’m dead to you?!!! Well you’re DEAD TO ME TOO!!!” at that moment the waiter walks up unaware and in a chirpy voice asked “and how is everything folks?”
An institution dies an ugly death in real time. Good by Mr. Woodward, see your book in the remainders bin at a local Barns and Noble very soon. (Yes Woody is flogging a book about the collapse of the debt deal and, spoiler alert, he jumps the shark on Obama.)
“The Bob Woodward of today is not the same Woodward from Watergate days.” Angels
And, that Woodward from the Watergate days was “self-serving” and “exaggerated” (as documented below) first in his (and Bernstein’s) book and then in the film “All the President’s Men”.
By all reliable accounts, “All the President’s Men” was and is not a comprehensive book about Watergate.
The book as written had them at the center of the story as it was mostly about them and their “crusade”. It was played (in both the book & film) as though Woodward (and Bernstein) saved the country and it was they or in combo with the WaPo were the sole discoverers of the truth about Watergate and it was they who finally made Nixon resign. Actually, it was the work of law enforcement officials and then the Watergate Hearings in Congress that finally put the kibosh on Nixon’s “reign”. It was only after being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed in Congress to impeach him that Nixon decided to resign.
For a truly definitive history of the scandal, I would recommend “The Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon by Stanley Kutler. http://tinyurl.com/c9ka6u4
Here are some excerpts:
“As more documentary materials are released,” Kutler wrote, “the media’s role in uncovering Watergate diminishes in scope and importance. Television and newspapers publicized the story and, perhaps, even encouraged more diligent investigation. But it is clear that as Watergate unfolded from 1972 to 1974, media revelations of crimes and political misdeeds repeated what was already known to properly constituted investigative authorities. In short, carefully timed leaks, not media investigations, provided the first news of Watergate.”
“Local Washington reporting, especially in the Post, closely tracked the FBI’s work, relying primarily on raw Bureau reports. The Woodward and Bernstein account placing the pair at the center of the scandal, was self-serving and exaggerated, part of the press excessive claims for its role. They regularly ignored or minimized the work of law enforcement officials to focus on those parts of the story that were leaked to them.”
And, finally, this http://tinyurl.com/d48ehx3 from the Washington Monthly by Ed Kilgore, “Woodward Outfoxes Himself”:
“Why on earth would he talk about “threats” when he knew infallibly it wasn’t true and wouldn’t stand the light of day? Was it because he figured his new right-wing fans wouldn’t care whether it was true or not? Or is because something funny happens to a person’s sense of perspective once he’s been played by Robert Redford in a movie and has been told repeatedly he saved his country?”
Back to my comments. Woodward’s 15 minutes was up 40 years ago.
That graphic of him posted by Taylor is now a definitive portrait of this self-promoting, lying dip-shit clown. So glad he finally got himself caught in the cookie jar. So who is next in the village of pouter pigeons?
Btw, I don’t recall where I read this but I remember someone comparing Woodward to that other pouter pigeon, Sally Quinn.
Genius.
You folks are being awfully rude to a serious, deep thinking commenter here…who do you think you are…me?
Hee. Nah, “they” broke your mold, sec
Thanks, Joyce.
I forget where I read this today but I remember someone comparing Woodward to that other village pouter pigeon, Sally Quinn.
Pure genius.
Ouch on the pile-on!
Stoning would probably be more economical
for the deficit-concerned.
If nothing else this took everybody’s mind off the actual sequester.
Not really….Why….do you have a problem holding more then one thought at a time?