Political Animal
Blog
In a post yesterday on the continuing discussion of how and whether journalists are compensated, I observed there was more to political journalism than just ferreting out facts; interpretation, analysis, context—these are all just as and sometimes more important than the much-revered shoe-leather reporting skills (and for some of us with hourly deadlines, it’s all we can possibly do!).
In any event, there’s a good example today of a famously old-school reporter and how his meticulously documented facts sometimes did not lead to any real understanding of what he was reporting. The reporter in question is Bob Woodward, and Slate published a critique of his long-forgotten Belushi biography, Wired, by Tanner Colby, who worked with Belushi’s widow twenty years later to present a fairer picture of the late comic genius and thus spent lots of time essentially checking over Woodward’s version.
He provides multiple examples of how Woodward got his facts right, but distorted their meaning:
Wired is an infuriating piece of work. There’s a reason Woodward’s critics consistently come off as hysterical ninnies: He doesn’t make Jonah Lehrer-level mistakes. There’s never a smoking gun like an outright falsehood or a brazen ethical breach. And yet, in the final product, a lot of what Woodward writes comes off as being not quite right—some of it to the point where it can feel quite wrong. There’s no question that he frequently ferrets out information that other reporters don’t. But getting the scoop is only part of the equation. Once you have the facts, you have to present those facts in context and in proportion to other facts in order to accurately reflect reality. It’s here that Woodward fails.
Over and over during the course of my reporting I’d hear a story that conflicted with Woodward’s account in Wired. I’d say, “Aha! I’ve got him!” I’d run back to Woodward’s index, look up the offending passage, and realize that, well, no, he’d put down the mechanics of the story more or less as they’d happened. But he’d so mangled the meaning and the context that his version had nothing to do with what I concluded had actually transpired.
Sounds about right. As I happens, I read Wired many years ago, and the impression I immediately had was that Woodward doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, which is a serious handicap in trying to explain the life and death of a comedian.
Facebook
Twitter
Dave W on March 12, 2013 2:46 PM:
When Woodward's piece came out Jim Belushi commented that after seeing how Woodward operated, and what he wrote, He (Jim) now believed that Nixon was innocent.
BillFromPA on March 12, 2013 2:54 PM:
Funny, I just finished reading the Slate article before hopping here. One thing that leaps out at me is that it's beyond belief that Woodward is just a dense observer of human behavior, there has to be a submerged agenda in the way he mis-percieves reality. Anyone reading the email exchange that he saw as a threat would question the honesty or mental balance of such a person, the Slate article supports such a judgement.
Erik on March 12, 2013 2:55 PM:
"Woodward doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, which is a serious handicap in trying to explain the life of a comedian."
Heck, it's a serious handicap in trying to explain life. Period.
Shawn on March 12, 2013 3:03 PM:
My favorite memory of that terrible book was the Bloom County parody, where Woodward was writing a tell all book about the death of Bill the Cat. With Opus getting bamboozled into letting too many secrets slipped.
For what it's worth, Woodward got WAY too much credit for breaking Watergate. It was the Congressional investigating committees that pushed it along. Leaving that aside, when was the last time Woodward wrote anything that wasn't hackish in exactly the way implied by that really interesting Slate article?
Shane Taylor on March 12, 2013 3:14 PM:
Reminds me of one of Josh Marshall's wiser posts over at TPM:
"Democrats often console themselves that even when they don't win elections, usually their individual policies are more popular than those of Republicans. _Too bad you can't elect a policy._ It's true for instance that Health Care Reform--which still has more opponents than supporters--is pretty popular when you ask people about its individual components. But why is that? It's not random, because that pattern crops up again and again. It's another one of the examples where liberals--or a certain strain of liberalism--focuses way too much on the libretto of our political life and far too little on the score. It's like you're at a Wagner opera reading the libretto with your ear plugs in and think you've got the whole thing covered."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/the_deal_with_palin.php
The context is obviously different, but there is a similar incomprehension of meaning.
Tom Q on March 12, 2013 5:00 PM:
My recollection of Wired is that Woodward came off like a guy who'd never smoked a joint. He seemed to think it was incumbent on anyone who'd ever seen Belushi indulge in any kind of drug at any time should have, I don't know, ripped it from his mouth -- or called the cops. It was like a nun's history of someone's hyperactive sex life: even if the subject could be said to have over-indulged, the author was so distant from the very subject there was no possibility of insight.
pjcamp on March 12, 2013 9:55 PM:
I've long thought that Bernstein was the brains of the operation.
Laura S. on March 12, 2013 10:34 PM:
I read Wired for the first time last year after finding an old Rolling Stone magazine from my college days that had a story about the negative reaction to the book.
I thought Wired was a great read. I agree that some of the anecdotes in the book seemed to be there just because Woodward had found Belushi's limo driver.
What is odd is to think that Colby thinks interviewing people 20 years after the fact is how to get the *real* story. Uh-huh. Ask me about my long-ago college days and I'm sure my tales will be completely unbiased.
Anonymous on March 13, 2013 8:58 AM:
It's more than just a lack of a sense of humor. Woodward consistently gets the big picture and details wrong - or skewed.
Belushi wasn't just a druggie, Greenspan wasn't a Maestro, Bush wasn't a bold leader who spoke in complete sentences, Powell wasn't a bold truth teller.
A dead give away is his "God's point of view" style. No-one can possibly know the facts in the way he presents them. So it's pretty clear he's BS'ing when he presents stuff in that way.
So go to the Krugman /Silver rule - does what this person says comport with facts that we know? And if doesn't - the person is lying for a purpose.
And that's what is now abundantly clear - Woodward for years has been lying to make people in power who leak to him look good - facts, context and undertanding be damned.
Bootoomee on March 13, 2013 9:00 AM:
@Laura S.
You have the right to carry water for Woodward but you don't get to question other people's integrity in the process. Your point about "20 years" memory lapse discounted the fact that "Wired" received widespread condemnation from all the people sourced by Woodward for the book right after its release.
BTW, Colby agreed that opinions can tilt over 20 years but they don't make 180 degrees. In my life experience, I totally agree. And I believe so would any other objective person.
Bottom line: On the 2 issues that could be verified with sources publicly, Bob Woodward failed accuracy and interpretation tests miserably. I do not see any reason why anyone should believe anything he writes that cannot be openly verified.