The left is really sinking their fangs into Woodward. Huffington has posted "That hissing noise is the air being let out of Woodward's reputation"
The New York Times
November 17, 2005
A Star With Multiple Roles Now Faces Questions of Conflict Among Them
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and SCOTT SHANE
For 30 years, Bob Woodward has reigned as a one-man investigative reporting franchise from his base at The Washington Post. With the blessing of Post management, he has juggled his roles as star reporter, assistant managing editor and best-selling author, managing to keep those roles from colliding.
But collide they have, and in spectacular fashion, leading the country's most famous investigative reporter to issue an apology yesterday for failing to reveal his involvement in a major national investigation. His handling of the matter has now raised questions about his paper's credibility and has roiled The Post's newsroom.
Mr. Woodward apologized to The Post's executive editor yesterday for concealing for more than two years that he had been drawn into the growing scandal over the leak of the name of a C.I.A. operative.
Mr. Woodward testified under oath Monday that a senior administration official told him the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson, a month before it was disclosed publicly by Robert D. Novak, the columnist, in July 2003, The Post reported yesterday. Mr. Woodward told the editor, Leonard Downie Jr., only last month of the conversation, which he had pledged to keep confidential.
Mr. Woodward enjoys a unique, if not mythic, status at The Post and among journalists, stemming from his work with Carl Bernstein in uncovering Watergate. Now his withholding of the leak information from his paper has renewed questions about the potential conflicts of interest brought on by his multiple roles - as a reporter, editor and author, as well as a commentator on television and the lecture circuit.
In this case, Mr. Woodward appeared on television discussing the C.I.A. leak investigation - and minimizing its importance - without his editors, his readers or his television viewers knowing he was privy to information for which other reporters had been subpoenaed.
Even as the role of reporters, including Judith Miller of The New York Times, became central to the case, Mr. Woodward concealed his own involvement, hindering his paper's ability to report fully on the leak investigation.
It was the second time this year that Mr. Woodward's loyalties to a book seemed to cross with his duty to his newspaper. In June, W. Mark Felt, a former F.B.I. official, revealed himself to be Mr. Woodward's legendary Watergate source, Deep Throat. Mr. Woodward, who was writing a book in which he planned to reveal Deep Throat's identity, reluctantly acknowledged that Mr. Felt was his source only after Vanity Fair revealed his identity and Mr. Felt stepped forward.
That incident had created some tension between Mr. Woodward and Mr. Downie and served as a backdrop for a breakfast meeting between the two yesterday to discuss Mr. Woodward's involvement in the C.I.A. leak case.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Woodward said of Mr. Downie: "He made the point, which is right: I should tell him more. More is better. Sooner is better."
He added: "I was so focused on protecting sources, I didn't want to get dragged into this, as no reporter would. And I apologized to Len for not telling him this."
He added, "He graciously accepted it, and said there was a breakdown in communication, but not in trust."
Mr. Downie said: "It was important to have a long discussion about his not letting me know about this, about what he said in his TV appearances, about our relationship up to now - we've worked together since the latter stages of Watergate - and going forward. Obviously, he's in an unusual position."
He said that over the years, Mr. Woodward had managed to write books and "figured out how to help the paper without violating sources."
But in this case, Mr. Downie said, Mr. Woodward told him he had not discussed the matter with him because it came "as a tiny part of a longer interview, he was near the end of writing a book, he was frazzled, he was working as fast as he could, and this was said as an aside in the interview, he didn't think it was important."
Moreover, he said, Mr. Woodward told him he did not want to get subpoenaed.
"I said he should have told me," Mr. Downie said, "and we would have reasoned through it together."
Mr. Downie said he wanted to keep Mr. Woodward on the staff. "We've resolved that we'll have better communication going forward," he said. "After years, habits had formed, and we'll have new habits."
But concerns persisted inside and outside The Post's newsroom.
A confidential internal memo board at The Post lighted up yesterday with comments that Mr. Woodward's withholding of information would hurt the credibility of other Post reporters.
"This is the logical and perhaps inevitable outcome when an institution permits an individual to become larger than the institution itself," read one of those confidential postings, written by Jonathan Yardley, a veteran staff writer.
When contacted about the posting, which was e-mailed to The Times by a Post reporter, Mr. Yardley objected strenuously to its being made public. In the posting, he wrote that he expected that this episode might prompt the paper to re-examine "the star system and its attendant risks."
Outside analysts also saw problems.
"Woodward's metamorphosis over the past several decades from a tough investigative reporter to a soft courtier to the powerful" has been discouraging, said Rory O'Connor, a former CBS News producer and Frontline director who runs the Web site MediaChannel.org.
Mr. Downie acknowledged that Mr. Woodward's status had caused some problems, but said they were worth it, because he was so valuable to the paper.
"Over the years, because of the nature of this relationship, questions have been raised by other staff members about him, because he has a very unusual arrangement," Mr. Downie said. "There are issues that need to be managed, involving setting priorities between books and the paper, but that management is worthwhile because of what results."
Benjamin C. Bradlee, executive editor of The Post during Watergate, agreed, saying of Mr. Woodward: "He's sometimes harder to manage than you would like, but the benefits are so obvious. He's a tremendous asset to have on your staff."
Mr. Woodward's Watergate reporting partner, Mr. Bernstein, defended him. "I think you can second-guess anybody in a difficult situation," he said in an interview. "What I don't second-guess is Bob's journalistic integrity."
As a best-selling author and constant television presence, Mr. Woodward is among the few celebrity-journalists who are as famous as many of the officials they cover. A frequent public speaker, he charges $10,000 to $50,000 per appearance, depending on how far he has to travel, according to the Web site of Leading Authorities Inc., a Washington speakers' bureau.
Last week, Mr. Woodward spoke to the annual meeting of the Securities Industry Association, which represents investment banks, stockbrokers and related firms, in Boca Raton, Fla., addressing the leak case, among other topics. Travis Larson, a spokesman for the association, said Mr. Woodward was paid for the talk, but he declined to say how much. Mr. Downie said Post employees were not supposed to take money from, or speak to, governmental or interest groups unless they were doing so in an informational capacity.
Mr. Woodward is a frequent guest on "Larry King Live" on CNN, appearing as a Washington insider who interprets the capital to the American public. He is not paid for his appearances, a spokeswoman for the program said. He spoke on the program on Oct. 27, in what was his 27th appearance with Mr. King since the beginning of 2004.
"When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter," he said that day of the C.I.A. leak case.
Perjury charges were possible, Mr. Woodward said, but added, "I don't see an underlying crime here, and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to court with."
The next day, the prosecutor indicted I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was then Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, for perjury, false statement and obstruction of justice.
Asked about his televised remarks criticizing the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and minimizing the importance of the case and failing to mention his own involvement, Mr. Woodward said: "That was pent-up frustration, because I knew about this. As I said in the statement, the source said it in a very offhand, casual way. Len and I talked about that, and he reminded me that I should not be so outspoken, and generally I am not. He's right about that."
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said, "Who cannot ask the question, 'Was Bob Woodward dismissing the significance of this leak because of his own involvement?' "
"When you become this much of an insider," Professor Kirtley said, "inevitably you become involved in a way that's very problematic for a journalist." |
