By Berl Falbaum
Bob Woodward, Wash-ington Post associate editor, journalistic hustler, and huckster is back.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
As usual, Woodward uses anonymous sources, except this time he mentions only one source and admits, according to The New York Times, he could not confirm the information with anyone else.
The Times stated 20 members of the career intelligence community as well as President Biden and former Trump administration officials had no knowledge of any contacts between Trump and Putin.
In the book, as he always does, Woodward uses direct quotes to report on controversial issues when no official transcripts are available. He has never explained this violation of journalistic ethics.
At one point, when President Biden’s son, Hunter, came into the room and chatted with his father, the President just “leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes and sighed.” We can assume Woodward uncovered this information from a secret vault in the White House.
The book also “reveals” profane-laced statements made by Biden when discussing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Net-nyahu. At one point, we are told, he called Netanyahu a “f---- liar.”
We will have to take Woodward at his word.
This book follows one called “Peril” (co-authored with Robert Costa) in which Woodward states Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his counterpart in China, General Le Zuocheng, to assure him that he (Milley) would alert him if the U.S. planned to attack China.
Before I go on, is there anyone reading this who believes that the highest-ranking U.S. military official who spent 40 years in the military, would undermine the president and the country by providing such a warning and vital secret information of a surprise attack to an arch-enemy?
I did not think so. Indeed, when asked during a congressional hearing if he would do that, Milley responded under oath, “Of course, I wouldn’t,” adding, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Woodward also tell us that despite Milley’s assurances, General Li “remained unusually rattled.” Since no source is cited, we must assume that Woodward was sitting in Li’s office in China when Milley made the call.
Throughout the years, Woodward has violated journalistic ethics, not only with his use of anonymous sources or direct quotes that cannot be proven, but also he frequently reported on what officials were “thinking” in meetings they attended decades earlier. At night, I cannot even remember what I “thought” at breakfast.
But I must give Woodward credit for being shrewd in convincing officials to talk to him off-the-record. His sources understand if they answer his questions, they will not have to worry about being implicated in the subjects Woodward explores because he cannot divulge their identities. Woodward cannot criticize his sources even if they are responsible for the very crises Woodward investigates. They have protection.
Woodward knows all that and he exploits this relationship expertly.
In one case, Woodward did reveal a source. In 1985, he said that the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart was his primary source for his book, “The Brethren,” which dealt with the court.
Woodward did so after Stewart died, when the man could not defend himself. Not only did Woodward violate the ethic of keeping sources secret -- you never reveal sources -- but his revelation can only be described as ugly, mean-spirited and self-serving. How does one point a finger at a man after his death? What does that say about character?
Woodward’s career has been rampant with his questionable reporting.
Let’s review another major case involving Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.”
In the book, published in 1987, Woodward claimed that the late CIA Director William Casey confessed to him about illegal arms sales to Iran in what was called the Iran-Contra scandal.
Casey, at the time, was in the hospital, paralyzed and gravely ill following brain surgery, but Woodward claimed he managed to visit Casey in his hospital room despite strict security.
“You knew, didn’t you?” Woodward wrote, inquiring whether Casey was aware that funds from the sale of arms to Iran were being diverted to the Nicaraguan contras.
“His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.”
“Why?” Woodward said he asked. Casey replied faintly, “I believed.”
Casey’s family and intelligence officials all said it was impossible for Woodward to have avoided security to gain access into Casey’s hospital room.
At the time, Time Magazine observed: “It was a perfect ending for Woodward’s dramatic spy saga. Too perfect in the view of some…In familiar Woodward style, ‘Veil’ reads as much like a novel as a work of journalism, with scenes, dialogue and characters’ thoughts re-created. Woodward says he talked to more than 250 people, but his revelations are not directly attributed to specific sources.”
When Woodward’s boss, the late Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, spoke at the Detroit Press Club years ago, I asked him how Woodward gets away with his “journalistic compromises.”
Bradlee admitted, “He [Woodward] takes some liberties.”
The major question is: How did Woodward become such a hero in journalism? Newsweek Magazine, in examining Woodward’s work, asked that question in a 2013 article headlined: “The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is this Man an American Icon?”
No one in the business has ever answered that.
(Full disclosure: I have not read “War.” I don’t read much fiction. This column is based on news stories discussing the book’s release).
But I must confess that I am indebted to Woodward. When I was still teaching at Wayne State University, he provided me with lots of material for my classes on ethics in journalism.
This time with a book titled “War,” in which he claims Donald Trump, after leaving the White House, called Vladimir Putin seven times and sent him COVID kits which would protect the Russian leader.
As usual, Woodward uses anonymous sources, except this time he mentions only one source and admits, according to The New York Times, he could not confirm the information with anyone else.
The Times stated 20 members of the career intelligence community as well as President Biden and former Trump administration officials had no knowledge of any contacts between Trump and Putin.
In the book, as he always does, Woodward uses direct quotes to report on controversial issues when no official transcripts are available. He has never explained this violation of journalistic ethics.
At one point, when President Biden’s son, Hunter, came into the room and chatted with his father, the President just “leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes and sighed.” We can assume Woodward uncovered this information from a secret vault in the White House.
The book also “reveals” profane-laced statements made by Biden when discussing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Net-nyahu. At one point, we are told, he called Netanyahu a “f---- liar.”
We will have to take Woodward at his word.
This book follows one called “Peril” (co-authored with Robert Costa) in which Woodward states Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called his counterpart in China, General Le Zuocheng, to assure him that he (Milley) would alert him if the U.S. planned to attack China.
Before I go on, is there anyone reading this who believes that the highest-ranking U.S. military official who spent 40 years in the military, would undermine the president and the country by providing such a warning and vital secret information of a surprise attack to an arch-enemy?
I did not think so. Indeed, when asked during a congressional hearing if he would do that, Milley responded under oath, “Of course, I wouldn’t,” adding, “My oath is to support the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Woodward also tell us that despite Milley’s assurances, General Li “remained unusually rattled.” Since no source is cited, we must assume that Woodward was sitting in Li’s office in China when Milley made the call.
Throughout the years, Woodward has violated journalistic ethics, not only with his use of anonymous sources or direct quotes that cannot be proven, but also he frequently reported on what officials were “thinking” in meetings they attended decades earlier. At night, I cannot even remember what I “thought” at breakfast.
But I must give Woodward credit for being shrewd in convincing officials to talk to him off-the-record. His sources understand if they answer his questions, they will not have to worry about being implicated in the subjects Woodward explores because he cannot divulge their identities. Woodward cannot criticize his sources even if they are responsible for the very crises Woodward investigates. They have protection.
Woodward knows all that and he exploits this relationship expertly.
In one case, Woodward did reveal a source. In 1985, he said that the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart was his primary source for his book, “The Brethren,” which dealt with the court.
Woodward did so after Stewart died, when the man could not defend himself. Not only did Woodward violate the ethic of keeping sources secret -- you never reveal sources -- but his revelation can only be described as ugly, mean-spirited and self-serving. How does one point a finger at a man after his death? What does that say about character?
Woodward’s career has been rampant with his questionable reporting.
Let’s review another major case involving Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.”
In the book, published in 1987, Woodward claimed that the late CIA Director William Casey confessed to him about illegal arms sales to Iran in what was called the Iran-Contra scandal.
Casey, at the time, was in the hospital, paralyzed and gravely ill following brain surgery, but Woodward claimed he managed to visit Casey in his hospital room despite strict security.
“You knew, didn’t you?” Woodward wrote, inquiring whether Casey was aware that funds from the sale of arms to Iran were being diverted to the Nicaraguan contras.
“His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.”
“Why?” Woodward said he asked. Casey replied faintly, “I believed.”
Casey’s family and intelligence officials all said it was impossible for Woodward to have avoided security to gain access into Casey’s hospital room.
At the time, Time Magazine observed: “It was a perfect ending for Woodward’s dramatic spy saga. Too perfect in the view of some…In familiar Woodward style, ‘Veil’ reads as much like a novel as a work of journalism, with scenes, dialogue and characters’ thoughts re-created. Woodward says he talked to more than 250 people, but his revelations are not directly attributed to specific sources.”
When Woodward’s boss, the late Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, spoke at the Detroit Press Club years ago, I asked him how Woodward gets away with his “journalistic compromises.”
Bradlee admitted, “He [Woodward] takes some liberties.”
The major question is: How did Woodward become such a hero in journalism? Newsweek Magazine, in examining Woodward’s work, asked that question in a 2013 article headlined: “The Myth of Bob Woodward: Why Is this Man an American Icon?”
No one in the business has ever answered that.
(Full disclosure: I have not read “War.” I don’t read much fiction. This column is based on news stories discussing the book’s release).
But I must confess that I am indebted to Woodward. When I was still teaching at Wayne State University, he provided me with lots of material for my classes on ethics in journalism.
