Whitewash of Woodward?
I turned to Howard Kurtz's article in the Washington Post and the very morning before his story comes out, David Broder and Eugene Robinson speak scathingly about him and what he did on Meet the Press, but in his profile in this morning's Post, he only quotes an AME at the Post, Jeff Leen, saying what a great reporter Woodward is. (Transcripts)
Russert: 'Let me turn to the CIA leak investigation. Time magazine reports that Viveca Novak of Time magazine has now been subpoenaed to testify. David Broder, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, as you know, has testified before Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel. What's going on at The Post, in light of that?
MR. BRODER: Consternation, to be honest with you. I think none of us can really understand Bob's silence for two years about his own role in the case. He's explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blindsided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.
MR. ROBINSON: I agree with David. Consternation, a certain amount of embarrassment. And, you know, the fact that we can't understand why Bob did what he did....
From the WaPo:
"What, then, explains the recent storm of criticism? "There's an enormous jealousy factor over this guy," says Jeff Leen, The Post's assistant managing editor for investigations, who has worked closely with Woodward. "People like to see the king fall. . . . There are a lot of armchair quarterbacks who couldn't carry Woodward's shoes but are weighing in on whether he should keep his job."
He ignores Broder and Robinson at the Post who wanted to obviously talk on the record. Howie does include many other takes that criticize Woodward's role, but then lists all the great stories that Bob has worked on in the past. The point of the revelation Woodward made about knowing Valerie Plame's name has nothing to do about Water-Gate. It's about Bob being joined to the hip with this administration (just like Scooter and Cheney were) so he can have access to information that others will not. He even admits to not asking enough, tough question in the run up to the war. Kurtz did print many blogger reactions to the Woodward bombshell on Nov. 17th, which were highly critical of him. Why then did he choose to whitewash Bob yesterday and not give us his own opinion as well as many of his colleagues? Maybe he already has.