Getty Images
Even legends go through slumps. An iconic movie star might make a couple of box-office duds; star athletes may struggle for a while; pop stars might release some uninspired albums; and in Bob Woodward's case, a celebrated journalist might fall in a metaphorical ditch and inexplicably keep digging.
The heralded Washington Post reporter first ran into trouble with an op-ed on the sequester, which included a series of factually-inaccurate claims. Instead of running a correction, Woodward doubled down on his mistakes. As criticism mounted, Woodward appeared on MSNBC yesterday to criticize President Obama, complaining that it's "madness" for the White House to follow federal laws written on a "piece of paper," giving the impression that he thinks it's inexcusable for the president to honor laws duly passed by Congress.
With many wondering aloud what's wrong with Woodward, the reporter, apparently eager to make himself the center of a larger story about himself, turned to Politico's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei to up the ante.
Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell him that in a piece in that weekend's Washington Post, he was going to question President Barack Obama's account of how sequestration came about -- and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide "yelled at me for about a half hour," Woodward told us in an hour-long interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets.
According to Woodward, when he prepared to publish his now-debunked op-ed, he received an angry call from Gene Sperling, a top economic aide to President Obama, who grew frustrated with Woodward's dubious claims. The reporter told Politico that Sperling made a veiled threat, telling Woodward he'll "regret" publishing the piece. He repeated the claim on CNN, insisting, "It was said very clearly, you will 'regret' doing this."
And at it was this very moment when Bob Woodward put his credibility as a journalist on the line -- and lost.
Last week, after their phone conversation got a little heated, Sperling emailed Woodward directly and said, "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.... But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
Sperling added in his email, "I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously. My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize."
Woodward told the world yesterday that this was the threatening email he received. He took a few words out of context in order to look like a victim of heavy-handed White House pressure, but now that the email itself is available, it's clear there was nothing threatening about Sperling's message and Woodward's efforts to suggest otherwise were deliberately deceptive. Indeed, in case facts still matter, what Sperling argued happened to be true -- Woodward had several key facts wrong. It's no doubt why Sperling wrote, "I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
That's not a threat. That's a White House professional gently trying to encourage a journalist not to publish a mistake.
Indeed, Woodward himself, after receiving the email he now says included the threat, responded to Sperling:
"You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob"
Funny, Woodward didn't mention any of this when claiming he'd been threatened.
This would be an ideal time for Woodward to start walking back some of his increasingly bizarre claims, but instead, he's agreed to appear on television tonight -- with Fox News' Sean Hannity.
No, seriously.
When it comes to his chosen profession, Bob Woodward has had the kind of career most media professionals can only dream of. I'm not just talking about Watergate or his Pulitzers; books like The Brethren are just exceptional pieces of work. This is a reporter who's earned his place in journalistic history.
Which is why it saddens me to see him become so reckless for no reason. I just can't figure out what's gotten into Woodward, or why he's acting so erratically. But at this point, it seems Woodward is doing lasting, possibly irreparable harm to his once-sterling reputation, and that is a genuine shame.
Leave a Comment:
Politico's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
Where else other than Hack Central , Mourning Joe's favorite boys @ 6:30 for the world through a Republican Focus . Always a love fest
Hey Woodward . Double Dog dare you to show your tired puss on Maddow
Care in what you wish for . Recalling how Jon Stewart was snowed by John Yoo's polished effrontery , and the foul taste that never improves .
Bob Woodward: A legend in his own mind.
Are we still chasing our tails about whether Congress "asked" for sequestration? Like maybe Jack Lew volunteered that he show up with no police and unarmed because that was SOP for paying a ransom, and then Woodward is jumping up and down saying that showing up unarmed was Jack Lew's idea because he has no notes that one of the kidnappers suggested bad things would happen if he showed up with any weapons on him.
.
Seriously Woodward? It doesn't even pass the sniff test. Why would the President want something that is antithetical to his political position, and instead believe that the GOP was having something forced on it that the lunatic fridge is openly stating they prefer?
Bob. Get a grip. Not only is your hypothesis about Lew unsupported by facts, but it is not politically plausible.
FRP+4characters
Last time we checked Stewart is a Comedy show and Maddow is a serious commentary show .
That you have trouble discerning the difference tells me more about you than your usual word salad reveals.
Birds of a feather, flock together. Why else would hacktard Woodward go to hacktards VandeHei and Allen at the far right disinformation project known as Tiger Beat on the Potomac and put out his disinformation?
Woodward needs to go swimming in a vat of printer's ink, and swallow too much.
Wahhh, Wahhh, Wahhh! Oh never mind. It's just Woodward.
...by appearing in a room with Sean Hannity. Why, was Glen Beck busy?
LOL
Steve, I get it, you feel wounded that this once brilliant journalist has discredited himself and you wonder why. Why because the love of money is the root of all evil. Why because in this time of corporatism and individualism that WE all have been sold - he that is willing to sell his soul to make more money rules. Why because "access & celebrity" are the things that have been sold as a way to the good life and Bob has been living a very good life. Why because he's made his money and he plans to keep it, and he just like many others have sold their soul & conscious to be lifted above "the peasants".
Whom to believe...a journalist with a stellar background..or a Administration that lied to the American public about the deaths of 4 Americans in Libya AFTER the diplomat had been asking repeatedly for more security? Hmmmmmm....
At one time,Phillipe Petain had a "stellar reputation".
Whereas... Hussein NEVER has.. one term Senator followed by 4 years of complete catastrophe.
Your insistent use of his middle name to refer to the rightful President of the United States marks you as a particularly egregious Neo-Confederate, but you're obviously proud of being one. I'll give you this simple yes or no question: Were the states that made up the "Confederate States of America" justified in seceding?
Time to hang up the gloves, Mr. Woodward. Thanks for your service but all that hard work is going to get tarnished for a generation if he ends up being associated with the strangeness and blindness on the right.
'Sad' is a good way to put it.
I can't help but wonder what Mr. Brennan's reaction would have been to a Bush White House aide telling a reporter they would "regret" publishing an Op-Ed.
Not making a false equivalence argument here, just wondering out loud.
I'd like to think it would depend on the context. I think the perfect example is the different reaction surrounding the "you didn't build that" in the campaign. Shortly after that whole thing surfaced Mr. Romney gave a speech where he criticized President Obama and said (paraphrasing) that Steve Jobs didn't build apple and Gates didn't build Microsoft. Romney's was jokingly saying that effectively Obama's statement indicated they didn't build their respective empires, however he said it in such a way that the left could have taken the quote "Jobs didn't build Apple, Gates didn't build Microsoft" and done the exact same thing that Romney did with "you didn't build that." However, of course that didn't happen, why, because the left has integrity (for the most part) and cares about the facts over pure partisanship.
John-2416054
Who is Mr Brennan? Steve Benen writes this blog.
If you're going to troll, there's some basics you have to get right. Like the name of the person you're criticizing.
@John - I don't speak for Steve Benen, but I would hazard a guess his reaction would have been the same as it was here - a clear-eyed analysis of the brouhaha in its full context.
Brennan, Benen, whatever. The point still stands. I would like to think a clear analysis would be forthcoming, yet given his obsession with this topic, while decrying it's importance, makes me suspect.
Here's the key paragraphs in the email from Sperling to Woodword...
"But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.
The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start.
Really.
It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial.
(Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/exclusive-the-woodward-sperling-emails-revealed-88226.html
Some day you too will be like the coffee here , old and weak .
By the by , Artists age far more humanely with far less deterioration in their productive declines . Segovia , Cary Grant , Dostoevsky , Gogol , Chekov , O Henry , Mark Twain , right off the top of my head .
So what did you just say? Your word salads never follow the logic of reasoning, but then it takes a brain to be logical.
This story reeks of dementia. Someone needs to protect Woodward against himself.
He might have had a flower pot from one of his sources fall on his head.
I have an uncle - no, really, I do - whom I used to look up to with great admiration. Back in the 70s he was so full of life and lived it with great gusto. He was a brilliant engineer who loved hunting and fishing. I wanted to BE him when I grew up.
Now, after too many years of drinking, disputes with co-workers and management that got him fired, a divorce, depression, and who knows what else, he is a strange little old man with nothing. His own children won't speak to him, so he sent me a letter shortly after my dad (his brother) died, and rambled on for 6 pages about his love of drawing and Guiness, paranoid accusations of strange things, his plans to sue his doctor and then move to Ireland. A strange little man - barely a shadow of his former self.
Much more extreme than Woodward, but I do see some similarities here.
KJ, I think you're right. I've noticed similarities with Woodward and early dementia or brain cancer, and while I hope that's not the case, I kinda doubt it.
Rush Limbaugh, who has never been a fan of Woodward, is now repeatedly invoking his name as the ultimate authority on the Sequester, trying desparately to lend credence to the Right's claim that the Sequester is all Obama's fault. Ironically, the Right is both claiming the Sequester is no big deal while simultaneously trying to pin any negatives of the Sequester on the Administration. Sad to see such an acclaimed journalist taking the low road, and when offered an out, doubles down. Took a drink of the Kool-Aid, didja, Bob?
One more such irony would utterly undo them ...
They've been played...hypocrites all!
Seems to me he's been a different Bob Woodward since he spent time with Bush. At least that's when I started considering him irrelevant.
I quit reading anything by Woodward after his paean to Bush, titled "Plan of Attack." He lost credibility about a decade ago.
Yup, I'm with ya on that one.
It goes back to all the "attaboys" he got for his stenographical report of how all the Good Guys worked so hard to invade Panama back under Bush the Not Lesser.
Woodward reminds me of an old worn out race horse. His days of racing are over but he still thinks he can run. Let him go to Foxnot News and cry to Sean Vanity, keep him off of MSNBC. Like Sarah Palin he loves the spotlight.
Woodward been smoking something to get this paranoid. Check his brief case for munchies.
Woodward is pushing a freaky Stockholm Syndrome theory about the sequestor, that Obama bought into the debt ceiling hostage taking. That is just impossible for a fair minded person to swallow.
The main problem with the Republicans is they have had their heads stuck up the rich bastards arses way too long. It is amazing that the Republicans can breathe at all let a lone function mentality with the lack of oxygen. Republicans actually do something right that would actually be for all people and not just for rich bastards would be too much of a real shock to ones system. Just look at how the Republicans run to suck up to deadbeat Romney, you seen Republicans tripping over each other, they just couldn’t get close enough.
This situation is a side effect of the new culture of "news". Now-a-days, drama for clicks trumps factual accurateness. The whole situation is a shame.
If Woodward hadn't turned into such a sorry piece of crap over the last ten or fifteen years, I'd feel sorry for him. As it is, he's just a dried up old hack. Who listens to him anymore anyway?
" Who listens to him anymore anyway"
Everyone within a five mile radius of the Washington Monument. The rest of the country, not so much.
When I was in grade school ( a long time ago) they used to call it resting on your laurels .
Unfortunately Day is right and it will only get worse .
Ohboyohboyohboy. Now I can sell me some books to the teabaggers with an endorsement from Hannity and Rush.
On the Faux payroll as a "serious" voice 3...2..1
It's getting to be funny...Every gaffe..every bad jobs report...every murdered diplomat/Border agent...All Liberals do is cover for this complete and utter failure. Ever get tired of trying to shine this turd's record?
Is your tinfoil hat too tight, troll?
Probably not as tight as you appear to be clinging to this turds coat tails..... Get's tougher by the day....doesn't it?
Scott is just number 3860658 on a long roll of toilet paper that begins with Limbaugh.
And every bad economic report is a "Conservative conspiracy"...You so funny.....
Tony...,
And that's putting it mildly!
It's not 15 years, it's 23. When he led the hosannas for Bush the Not Lesser saving plucky little Panama from the Evil Noriega.
Hey conservative troll, you may want to think about more than Benghazi (as much of a boner you get poking at Mr. Stevens corpse, you sick @!$%#), try reading this:
Attacks on US embassies.
This was hardly the only or most deadly of embassy attacks in the last 30 years. It is, though, a complete tragedy.
Unclassified ARB.
The death of Ambassador Stevens was, again, a tragedy. But your constant beating the drums that Obama listened in real time and all the other inane bull@!$%# you conservative double douchebags so love throwing around does nothing more than make you feel better. Conservative mental masturbation. Period.
Woodward was just a lucky untalented reporter when Deep Throat called. Now he's no longer lucky.
I love this: "the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington's powerful have spilled their secrets." Pretty much illustrates all that's wrong with journalism today.
Chicago politics at it's best .......
Historians will view Obama and Nixon as the most thin-skinned, vindictive, and paranoid Presidents we have had in the past 125 years.
Because you said it, it's gotta be true.
Although, my estimate would be 127.35 years.
Clearly, you know nothing of Chicago politics.
Uh, really? You can do better than that. That's weak tea (pun intended), even for Obama derangement syndrome.
Oh, there's a reason. And you know what's gotten into Woodward. It's called Obama Derangement Syndrome and a lot of those in beltway media establishment have it.
Here is what you Benen lovers have to look at. Bob Woodward is first and foremost a real journalist. A real journalist is someone that reports facts and doesn't twist them. A blogger is usually someone with an agenda. Steve Benen is a blogger. Steves agenda is clear by the fact that he tries to debunk facts by pointing to other blogs he created. I've always had respect for Bob Woodward because he is honest in his reporting no matter who is in the Whitehouse. Steve Benen will never be a journalist untill he starts accepting the facts and loses his rabid partisanship and obvious contempt for any idea he doesn't agree with.
Release the Kraken
inspector, your logic will be lost on this crowd. Liberal ideology is emotion-based; not logic or principle-based.
By the same token, you clearly have an agenda and can just as easily be dismissed.
Ain't his grand?
You mentioned Benen more times than you mentioned Woodward.
From CNN:
Washington Post rebukes Bob Woodward
"Yes, I was very wise to hitch my wagon to his star."
So...you're saying Woodward is this upstanding journalist who "reports facts and doesn't twist them" and is "is honest in his reporting no matter who is in the Whitehouse"? Never mind he got his facts wrong and embellished this so called "threat"? He's honest, so never mind when he isn't...
It strikes me as odd that you clearly have little respect for Steve, yet you choose to waste your time here...
It's REALLY easy to dismiss the SMALL fact that this administration has more people unemployed than when this failure took office, or the record number of Americans on Welfare and food stamps, or how gas prices have tripled under this failure or how Hussein basically murdered 4 Americans in Libya by dismissing the Diplomats REPEATED requests for more security and now threatening a respected journalist for a piece he was working on...Liberals are REALLY good at "dismissing" Hussein's "small" flaws...eh,genius?
Howard Fineman on Woodward:
December 14, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1540021/posts
Is that the SAME Howard Fineman working for the Huffington Post? That FINE, UPSTANDING Liberal blog site???(LOL)
Rollo: Appreciate you posting that Fineman quote, it adds valuable context to this discussion.
Valuable perhaps in the context that Fineman is NOW reduced to throwing Rose petals on this administration from the Huffington Post, undoubtedly to keep the smell down.
Scott: Fineman has more integrity than you and any thousand wingnuts put together. He often slams Obama, so trying to portray him as a shill only works with folks who check their intellectual curiosity at the door...
Whereas Woodward HAS NOT put Conservatives Testes in a vice repeatedly? But to try and portray his position at the putrid Huffington Post as anything more than a Liberal hack/Bombthrower would be laughable. Spare me....
Scott: Being on the wrong side of fact is a habit with you. Just look at the email exchange and decide for yourself if Woodward was "threatened" by Sperling. If you feel he was threatened, then your threat bar is too low for a Girl Scout or sewing circle meeting...
No Mas
One day I was talking to my 13 yr old and he said this about someone he didn't agree with: "That so and so is a total idiot, I just don't listen when he talks"
I replied to him that he was being unreasonable. I told him that he could learn something beneficial from anyone. You could learn what to do and what not to do.
That is why I use this site and many others before I form an opinion.
BTW Woodward got the same info that the house and senate got when they voted for the war.
If you tell someone they will regret going outside in zero degree weather without an overcoat it would be considered a threat according to Bobby Fauxward.
Defending the Hussein administration is a full time job these days.....
Yeah, it's tough and lonely being an Obama, or "Hussein", as you so wittily put it, fan these days.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/obama-approval-rating_n_2729342.html
It's funny, cause you said Hussein. A real side-slapper.
Is it on his Birth certificate? Errrr..bad analogy.
Really lame attempt at deflection, Potty.
Scotty: Please remove head from ass and turn on brain before participating. Thank you.
What are the odds that Woodward is simply trying to revive interest in his latest book.
Woodward's last book tanked four weeks after it's September introduction - what did one reviewer call it - I think the word "tedious" was used. Bill O'Reilly's Bartonish version of Lincoln's assassination, on the other hand, has remained on the New York Times top 10 list - month after month - frequently as number one. (Pulitzer Prize winner vs. Fox News commentator...)
So I'm sure Woodward does receive many threatening e-mails - most of them, no doubt, from his agent.
What are the odds you are carrying water for your false prophet? (again)
Hi Scottie - long time - not quite long enough - but still...
Yet again you put your upraised digit on the problem, even if it slipped by your spelling checker. Profit. Woodward can't seem to figure out which pond to dip his bucket in - to maximize it.
Thanks for the invitation - I'll check out your other posts. I'm sure that, soon, we will become good comrades.
As I've long yearned for.........
As I've long suspected ...
the video that you won't find in the main stream media regarding the sequester:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj1y3q92sog&feature=player_embedded
no kool-aid drinkers want to defend our "politician in chief"'s words in this video?
Micheal, You will soon be collapsed by the community.
you trolls all got played
Inspector, scott,michael
One of your heros just conceded.
Time to go back under the bridge
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservatives-regret-taking-woodwards-threat-story-seriously?ref=fpa
Were laughing at you not with you
Laughter is the best medicine. Although I never posted anything about the so-called threat. My posts are all about where the sequester originated. But if it makes you "feel" better, go ahead and laugh. I too get alot of joy from this blog on occasion.
@Michael - you've really got to up your game when trying to play 'gotcha’ on this board.
In the first clip in the video, Pres. Obama said he would veto any GOP attempt to repeal the sequester at that time because the GOP was trying to gid rid of it so that Republicans would not have to negotiate with Democrats on the budget. In other words, the sequester was agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats as a means to get both sides to work out spending cuts and revenue, and then suddenly, Republicans wanted to back out of that deal. Obama said he would veto their attempt to do so because it would take the agreed mechanism for working out a compromise approach to the budget off the table. Again, context is everything when trying to play 'gotcha.'
June, please look up the definition of "circular reasoning" and then reread your post.
Saying it's so doesn't make it so, troll. You are probably another life member of MyFacts.com
8087
Look at the common geometric construction of a stool , now examine your own .
Circular !
My favorite Woodward tweet. From @RexHuppke: