James Taranto’s take on the kerfuffle about Bob Woodward and Gene Sperling seems pretty credible to me:
The email does seem at odds with Woodward’s description of it, but that disparity is one of tone. Woodward’s description of the email exchange made it sound hostile and combative, whereas the tone of the actual emails is reasonable and conciliatory. But Sperling’s email makes clear right off the bat that there is a context to which outside observers are not privy: The emails were preceded by a “conversation” in which Sperling “raised my voice” to such an extent that he felt it necessary to apologize in writing.
Our surmise is that the email exchange was an exercise in rationalization rather than candor–that both Sperling and Woodward were concealing their anger in an attempt to come across as reasonable to each other and to themselves. In the CNN interview, by contrast, Woodward failed (if he attempted at all) to hide his feelings and thus gave an emotionally more accurate portrayal of his exchange with Sperling, even if the inference that there was a threat involved turned out to be mistaken.
You’ve got to consider the context and the context was Bob Woodward being yelled at by Gene Sperling for an hour. Maybe Woodward was yelling back but to the best of my knowledge there isn’t any documentation of that.
Also consider that Woodward was called a liar by the Press Secretary and too old by an Obama aid. The notion that he would regret this was communicated in the context of personal attacks.
Tarantano may be correct about some of the underlying dynamics, but as someone involved in a bit of yelling in his occupation, I think its important to distinguish different circumstances involved when a continuing relationship exists. A lot of unpleasantness in this world can be dealt with by avoidance or “icing” the person. But if its someone in a superior position to you, then you will probably find it necessary to at least partially confess your sins in the hopes of recreating a working relationship. If the relationship is more one of a peer (in my case an opposing attorney), it makes the most sense to not recognize the behavior or minimize it, at least partly because you never want to let them see you sweat. Otherwise, they’ll keep doing it.
No reasonable reading of the emails leads to a conclusion that Woodward felt threatened, which is what he clearly implied.
Put it this way: If Woodward had known the emails would be made public, would he have claimed he was being intimidated? No.
He said it because he was looking for attention, he exaggerated, he hyped, he got caught and now he looks like a whiner and a fool. When your chosen venue for defending the veracity of your reporting is the Hannity show, you’ve lost any benefit of the doubt. Woodward knew his own story was coming apart so he avoided actually defending himself and chose to talk to Fox’s dumbest of the dumb.
Woodward explicitly stated that he did not feel intimidated, but that he was calling this official out for the use of a veiled threat because younger, unseasoned reporters certainly might feel that they had to back down. I don’t think the yelling is relevant; Woodward and just about everyone else acknowledges that tempers frequently flare. That’s just mano a mano stuff though, which is different from A WH official implying that the power of his boss’s office will be brought to bear against a journalist’s reputation and/or livelihood.
Whatever his motivation for going public with this,
Excuse the premature posting, please….
Whatever his motivation (attention mongering is highly possible, although you’d think he would have also anticipated the blowback and damage to his reputation), it is interesting that others are now feeling freer to come forth with complaints.
“Our surmise is that the email exchange was an exercise in rationalization rather than candor–that both Sperling and Woodward were concealing their anger in an attempt to come across as reasonable to each other and to themselves.”
Well, yeah.
BTW – That’s a level of willful naivete I wouldn’t expect from you, Michael.
Drew:
You’re missing the point. Woodward is a reporter. He is supposed to adhere to a standard of proof. The email, not the conversation, is the basis for his claim. Does the email support his claim of intimidation? No, it does not. When the evidence does not support the allegation the reporter does not report it. Right?
Woodward’s claim is that he was threatened in an email. The email does not substantiate that. Nothing else matters unless Woodward wants to claim he was threatened in person or whatever. (It sounds like, per past history, Sperling is a bit of a drama queen. I bet Woodward knows this.)
Steve
….although you’d think he would have also anticipated the blowback and damage to his reputation), it is interesting that others are now feeling freer to come forth with complaints.
There is a journalistic icon status attributed to both Woodward and Bernstein for their historical reporting of Watergate. However, Woodward has remained in the writing fray far longer than Bernstein, having access and penning best sellers about various presidents along the way, contributing to a seasoned career in analyzing both D & R administrations. Even though I think of Woodward’s politics as being left of center, I have not seen him treating his subject matter with a hyper partisan eye, like let’s say a Michael Reynolds does in blog comments, and would probably pen should he write about a republican president. So, IMO, Woodward has cultivated a deserving credibility through the years.
For instance, his assessment on the ‘grand bargain,’ where he said that Obama changed the goal posts, adding taxes after an agreement had already been forged with Boehner, syncs with what the Speaker has repeatedly said all along. This recent exchange with Gene Sperling, was also relayed in a matter-of-fact manner, with no hyperbole, just a replay of a verbal and written back and forth with a WH aide. Woodward, even corrected language of others when they inserted more inflammatory words like ‘threat,’ etc. Instead, his emphasis, and consequential chagrin, seems focused on the WH’s attempts to mold budget talk stories their way, instead of just telling the truth (what a concept!). At his age and stage of life Woodward seems to be genuinely concerned about the future of news reporting, in being able to freely call out events as they, especially young novice reporters, see them, rather than being kept on a shortened leash by some R or D administrative mucky muck.
I take my hat off to Woodward in going against the Obama machine, as few others have dared to do. Instead of being thrown under, off, or in the back of the bus, he is holding his own and sticking with what he believes to be correct and true.
@Jan
“For instance, [Woodward’s] assessment on the ‘grand bargain,’ where he said that Obama changed the goal posts, adding taxes after an agreement had already been forged with Boehner, syncs with what the Speaker has repeatedly said all along.”
If by ‘grand bargain’ you mean ‘sequestration fix’, Dave Weigel and Ezra Klein put paid that that falsehood. See, Bob Woodward and the Mystery of the Mobile Goalposts.
Really, Jan, you need to get out more, out of the echo chamber I mean.
Kathleen Parker, of the Washington Post, has written an opinion piece making some good points about Woodward’s pushback against the Obama administration’s treatment of the press.
There seems to be a growing contingency comparing Obama to Nixon — now that’s not a favorable place for a democrat to be!
Almost as a book end to Parker’s current day admonitions is a 2008 Michael Barone piece warning about the coming Obama thugocracy.
Manipulating or suppressing an opposing opinion/idea to your own is never a good idea, no matter which party is in power. Discussion, in the open, is what the 1st amendment is all about.
I’m not missing anything, Michael. And I’m not trying to pick a fight. But this is just absurd cover for a no damned good man.
You have to believe Woodward has gone senile or berserk. Lanny Davis is off the reservation; Ron Fournier and how many tiny balled others are making stuff up.
You have to believe Obama didn’t put two of the dirtiest people around in his inner circle: Emanual and Axelrod. You have to believe Obama didn’t describe an absolute thug – Emil Jones – as his political godfather when an IL state senator. You have to believe that Obama doesn’t owe everything to the divorce records of his opponent in the US Senate race being magically opened. You have to beleiev he doesn’t traffic in the most excreble class warfare tripe. I could go on. He is not a good man.
Politics isn’t for the feint of heart, but when did you and steve (and other apologists) become Little Lord Fauntleroy?
I’m to understand you lived on the streets at one time and you fall for this thinly veiled act??
No, Drew, you don’t have to believe any of those things. You only have to believe that the emails show clearly that Woodward at very least overstated his case, and then doubled down which makes him a liar and a poor reporter.
Don’t sanctify Woodward. Woodward has the Orson Wells tragedy: did his best work at a very early age. Since then his reporting for books has been challenged repeatedly. Woodward is a mouthpiece for the Washington establishment — he faithfully records self-serving narratives from high level sources in order to make money. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make him super reporter.
Do I think this WH yells at reporters from time to time? Yes. Just like every single WH in history. Of course reporters get yelled at. It’s their job to get yelled at. You’re so desperate for an Obama scandal you’re siding with a reporter, for God’s sake. Look at yourself: you’re slavering. And as usual, you got nothing.
Bob Woodward got yelled at. In emails he and Sperling made up. Then Woodward went all drama queen. The emails were released, and Woodward was shown to be lying. Then Woodward began avoiding real reporters and ran off to Hannity. That’s what happened. Sorry: no Watergate, no Teapot dome, nothing. Zero. As usual.
I guess I don’t get it. Why should I give a flying “f” about the story? Just another manufactured drama to distract the proles ?
“For instance, his assessment on the ‘grand bargain,’ where he said that Obama changed the goal posts, adding taxes after an agreement had already been forged with Boehner, syncs with what the Speaker has repeatedly said all along.”
Which is at odds with Lizza’s piece in which Cantor claims he stopped the grand bargain.
“You have to believe Woodward has gone senile or berserk.”
Nah, he just wants to make money. Surely you understand that. He needs to maintain the brand. Occasionally picking a fight with the powers that be helps maintain credibility. 4 of the top ten NYT best sellers non-fiction are by or for those on the right side of center. It is an important market.
http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2013-03-10/hardcover-nonfiction/list.html
Steve
Steve:
Bingo.
I guess I don’t get it. Why should I give a flying “f†about the story? Just another manufactured drama to distract the proles ?
We have a winner!
Meanwhile a wage recession rages on, along with the employment recession.
But do please carry on….
Steve,
I don’t ever feel you are picking on me. Although we do frequently disagree, I also learn a lot from your posts as well. That to me is what is good about having different POVs , knowledge and graciously sharing it with others. You tend to do that. Thanks!
I have no idea as to why the above comment didn’t post on the previous thread about high medical costs????
Yeah, reporters and editors are coming out of the woodwork telling stories about their own experiences with hostile WH emails, but of course Woodward is making it all up and just saying these things because he wants more money, is getting old, or going berserk.
Are you guys getting paid money for making up excuses for Obama?
4 of the top ten NYT best sellers non-fiction are by or for those on the right side of center. It is an important market.
Maybe all that means is that people are hungry for something other than manufactured talking points and statistics by this administration.
I was at a dinner party last night — all liberal dems but my husband and myself. Even at this event people were talking about what the government was saying inflation was at, and refuting it by seeing prices on food and gas going sky high. One woman was complaining that inflation seemed more like “20%” rather than 3%. I didn’t say anything and just let her sound off about how bad things were getting to be…..But, I was thinking that even Obama’s natives are getting restless.
Meanwhile a wage recession rages on, along with the employment recession.
Ice,
No one is paying attention to the weak economic underpinnings in this country. It’s all about throwing social issues around that will divide the populace, while the fiscal affairs just keep eroding. That’s been the game plan all along…and, it’s working wonderfully!
Cutting words for the Obama sequester debacle.
But, his minions will throw down their capes so he can walk over the puddles of this travesty, without so much as getting his slippers wet.
Jan and Drew:
I admire the way you manage to believe that 1) The media is slavishly devoted to Obama, and 2) That Obama is a thug who terrorizes the media. And believe both simultaneously. Such mental dexterity.
Can you explain why Obama needs to bully a slavishly devoted media?
Michael
Leaving for S. CA, but will give you a quick response:
The media that is slavishly devoted to Obama gets to be in his presence. The media that dares to ask hard, uncomfortable questions, or worse yet, criticizes his policies or leadership gets the boot.
Mind you, I think all presidents have had their media favorites. However, one hears more and more how Obama has ratcheted up a biased relationship with the media — controlling it by how much access it may get, which depends on how ‘nice’ they behave with the message he wants to give the people. One editorial director called keeping ‘media pets.’ I agree.
I see it’s easy believing two opposite things when you’re sufficiently brainwashed. It’s sort of like believing Obama is both a secret Muslim and a secret Communist. The wonderful intellectual flexibility of the Foxbot.
Michael
You go to such extremes in your responses. If there is anyone brainwashed I would say it is you. For one thing your deep dislike/hatred of the opposition to your party makes any flexibility of thought almost impossible for you to conjugate.
….even SNL is taking on Obama in a sequester skit. I think Obama’s bravado and exaggerations are being called and raised by more people in the media now. Ah, maybe people are finally seeing though the rhetoric and realizing that he doesn’t know s**t about much except how to divide the country into pieces of humanity wanting their own special stuff.
Ahhh, I love it when smart people get caught up in an inane debate over something stupid.