Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

The Battle of Bob Woodward

March 1st, 2013 - 1:20 am

The Obama administration, I believe, will come to rue the day it declared war on the dean of the Washington press corps, Bob Woodward of Watergate fame. Now, I have never met Woodward, although I’ve been friendly with Carl Bernstein, the other half of the Watergate duo, for many years. But from what I know of both men, and of the journalists of their generation, I believe them to be good old-fashioned reporters for whom the story is everything. And if this is the moment when the last remnants of what used to be the American journalistic establishment dig in their heels and finally draw the line on rank partisanship — well, it’s about good and goddamned time.

It’s axiomatic today that “mainstream” journalists are corrupt tools of the liberal ascendancy, ethical roundheels who finally found Mr. Dreamboat in Barack Hussein Obama and have spent the years since 2008 lying on their backs and moaning. And that’s partly true. Obama was the culmination of everything they had wished for since the civil-rights movement, which to journalists of a certain age is the equivalent of Mao’s Long March, the event by which they define themselves. He was black, but not too black; indeed, were Obama a Republican (stop laughing) he’d be pilloried on the Left as an “Oreo,” black on the outside and white on the inside. He had gone to all the right schools (Columbia and Harvard), and yet he had a legend-ready exotic background (the “narrative”) that distinguished him from the usual private elementary school/Exeter/Yale progressives. Punahou? Who knew anything about Punahou? (Well, I do, but that’s a story for another time.) And the fact that his middle name was redolent of the culture that had wantonly attacked us on 9/11… bonus!

All those things are true, and yet — speaking as someone who began his journalistic career in 1971 — they are more true of the younger generation(s) of journalists, kiddies like the Juicebox Mafia ideologues masquerading as reporters, for whom leftist attitude is everything, especially when it is put to the service of the Democratic Party. That is to say, I hope and pray that some of us old coots still believe in the reporter’s core mission: to find out the truth and publish it. Period. That the thrill lies in the hunt, and it doesn’t matter which variety of big game you’re hunting as long as you bag it.

So return with me now to those glory days of 1972-74, when “Woodstein” was chasing the biggest story of their lives. Those of us in the profession (I was working at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle at the time) were enthralled by what the lads were doing — not running Nixon to ground or even, ultimately, bringing him down, but getting their stories on the front page every day. That was the true mark of journalistic success, and everything else was commentary. Our ethics were not those of The Party Line, but of The Front Page:

YouTube Preview Image

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
When it came to Obama, journalists did more than just fall in love and spread their legs. A lot more.

They apparently realized the "narrative" wouldn't be sufficient to sell the guy especially considering the thinness of his resume and dearth of real world experience. So they invented a whole other being: the lightworker; the intellectual whose mental acuity lifts him to a plane far above that to which we ordinary mortals are consigned; the unflappable cool cat; the smartest man to ever aspire to the presidency; the god standing above the country, above the world; the soaring rhetorician who is quite simply the greatest orator of our time; the sublimely gifted writer who produced perhaps the finest memoir in the history of memoirs (they even referred to it as a presidential memoir better even than US Grant's); the Alpha and Omega; the last, best hope; the combination of Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan. And, say, aren't his pants nicely creased. It was, in a word, revolting.

And when Sarah Palin threatened to derail the Obama train, the Forth Estate descended on Alaska like a pack of snarling wolves smelling fresh blood. Their prime directive: destroy at all costs. In the meanwhile, the only journalist I can recall who spent any time in Chicago digging into Obama's elusive past was the dogged Stanley Kurtz who was thwarted at seemingly every turn and whose findings were virtually ignored by his colleagues.

The 2008 campaign was a watershed moment in modern journalism. Seldom had it been so yellow or its prose so purple. What modicum of respect I still had for the so-called working press vanished and journalistic integrity became the biggest oxymoron in the lexicon.

So, does anybody recall what Bob Woodward was up to at the time?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not a big fan of Nixon but neither am I a herd animal that hates him just because it was fashionable to hate him. If anything that would make me most likely defend him, as I hate the mindless mob more than I do any particaulr politician.

That having been said, Nixon did no worse than any of his predecessors, e.g., JFK, or successors, e.g. Johnson, Clinton and of course the current occupant. What Nixon was guilty of was angering the leftist, marxist press during the Alger Hiss trial. And for that he must be destroyed. And Woodward and Bernstein were the hatchet men. That's all.

For all his supposed journalistic prowess where the hell was Woodward during Clinton's multiple malfeasances? Or during the first 4 years of the current abomination? He is by no means an ally of ours and personally I don't care what happens to him, other than that I take pleasure in any 'friendly-fire' incidents among my enemies.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's good to see the left turn its own, and a venerable saint like Woodward. Back the bus up and roll over him again please.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (56)
All Comments   (56)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Apparently nobody here actually read the emails. Woodward was never attacked and simply made a fool of himself, though you have to give some of the blame to the Washington Post editor who wrote an absurd headline to go with this non story.

You guys don't like Obama. Everybody gets that. Simply assuming that every story critical of the administration just has to be true, however, seals your reputation as ideologues disinterested in reality. It doesn't help when Walsh writes "It’s axiomatic today that “mainstream” journalists are corrupt tools of the liberal ascendancy," which is another example of conservatives operating with eyes wide shut. Aside from the dubiousness of the proposition that mainstream journalism is really liberal in the post-Reagan era—they certainly rolled over for Bush in the run up to the Iraqi war—Walsh doesn't seem to know what axiomatic means. Perhaps he belongs to the Thomas Friedman school of idiotic prose.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"....the dubiousness of the proposition that mainstream journalism is really liberal..." Your right. It's not liberal. It's actually ignorant, stupid, fascist, progressive, socialist, propagandist, tingling with delight over their boy-crush of Obama, moronic, lying, idiotic, cheering the twin towers coming down, calling terrorists freedom fighters, we hate capitalism, damn lying stooges, big government shills, please give us "marching orders," dunderheads. Couldn't agree more. By the way. Are you on drugs?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm aware it should read "you're," not "your."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Woodward was never attacked..."

Woodward had an hour long shout fest over the phone with Obama's chief economic adviser Gene Sperling after which Sperling sent an apologetic email BUT told Woodward he would "regret" making his point about the origin of the sequester.

(if you want to see the babbling brook Sperling on video, go to the link directly below...he's an idiot (that's an "attack" I'm making)

Although I didn't follow it too closely (intentionally), subsequently Andrew Sullivan wrote that Woodward was crazy and others wrote that it was time for him to die.

If you don't call those reactions from Obama's cabal of Useful Idiots "attacks", then you and I don't inhabit the same planet.

But we knew that.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Are all the Obama surrogates babbling weasels ?

(don't answer that question, it's too depressing)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sperling-admits-obama-misled-debate-president-did-propose-sequester_705015.html

Sperling Admits Obama Misled in Debate: The President Did Propose the Sequester

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Obama White House: malicious sycophants working for a malignant narcissist.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When it came to Obama, journalists did more than just fall in love and spread their legs. A lot more.

They apparently realized the "narrative" wouldn't be sufficient to sell the guy especially considering the thinness of his resume and dearth of real world experience. So they invented a whole other being: the lightworker; the intellectual whose mental acuity lifts him to a plane far above that to which we ordinary mortals are consigned; the unflappable cool cat; the smartest man to ever aspire to the presidency; the god standing above the country, above the world; the soaring rhetorician who is quite simply the greatest orator of our time; the sublimely gifted writer who produced perhaps the finest memoir in the history of memoirs (they even referred to it as a presidential memoir better even than US Grant's); the Alpha and Omega; the last, best hope; the combination of Lincoln, FDR and Ronald Reagan. And, say, aren't his pants nicely creased. It was, in a word, revolting.

And when Sarah Palin threatened to derail the Obama train, the Forth Estate descended on Alaska like a pack of snarling wolves smelling fresh blood. Their prime directive: destroy at all costs. In the meanwhile, the only journalist I can recall who spent any time in Chicago digging into Obama's elusive past was the dogged Stanley Kurtz who was thwarted at seemingly every turn and whose findings were virtually ignored by his colleagues.

The 2008 campaign was a watershed moment in modern journalism. Seldom had it been so yellow or its prose so purple. What modicum of respect I still had for the so-called working press vanished and journalistic integrity became the biggest oxymoron in the lexicon.

So, does anybody recall what Bob Woodward was up to at the time?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You forgot his fluency in Edmund Burke. :-) Great post. An entrepreneur could make a lot of money right now selling Obama knee pads.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is something very queer about Obama and his thralls in the media. Unfortunately, to so many, "black" and or "Democrat" trumps everything, including rationale, morality, and truth.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
the lefts dreamboat is in reality a listing rusted out garbage scow hauling leaking radioactive waste.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Too bad Woodward had to learn the hard way about which side to throw in with. He must have had an extreme tolerance to incompetence and lies but I guess after a while even the most "dense" must accept reality. We can only hope and pray more from the liberal propaganda machine come to the same realization that our current administration is built on lie after lie.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Bob Woodward saga of the past week should serve as a cautionary tale for how the younger morons out there (and there is a boatload of them masquerading as "journalists", both in print and over the airwaves) will leap on anyone and anything, will name call and cast vicious aspersions, if he or she steps out of the manufactured liberal mystique surrounding one Barack Obama.

This week the Leftist machine ramped itself up to thoroughly discredit Woodward, to "Palinize" him, as it has been attempting to do to Marco Rubio for some time now.

I am ashamed of my country when total idiots like Andrew Sullivan, Chrissy Matthews, Ezra Klein et al. and etc. even have a voice, let alone an audience.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So, Bob, you have been comfortable with the Obama administration for the last five years?! Only this most outrageous set of lies around sequestration has aroused your 'journalistic integrity'? I do welcome you to the club, Bob, but you are a little late. And I do question how you have been able to sit on your cushy butt for so long...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
His grousing about things that made first made it out to the public last fall . he's late, but better late than never. he's not the first obama synchophant to wake up. remember Jon Lovitz. it's a complete paradigm shift for them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'd like some butter on my popcorn, please.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm kind of torn about this one. My first reaction was, I thought Bob Woodward was a liar. Even with the John Belushi book. Director John Landis called Bob Woodward, "that Pulitzer prize winning liar." But it is interesting watching lefties turn on him. I wonder if it will be bad enough to convert him. Or wake up whatever real journalists are still out there.

And Mr. Walsh, "Lefties used to say that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Now they run from it like exploding vampires." I think that is worthy of a Pulitzer prize.

But to me, the true face of today's old media is Chris Matthews making an on air call to a sitting President for "marching orders." The fact that such an announcement is not a fire-able offense is unbelievable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All