[reply]The media is trashing one of their own and most distinguished members.

I read it all, and I don't have a clue what he did wrong. Can anyone help me here?[/reply]

Other than lying to his editor?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Serious question.

Did Woodward actually lie to his editor or just not offer up any information?

No one has suggested he lied to anyone to my knowledge. Except for you, of course, but nothing new there.

Depends on what you mean by "wrong". How about keeping quiet while people indicted (maybe even for the purpose of having that happen and embarrassing the administration) and others sit in jail? Illegal? No. Immoral? I think Woodward has admitted he made "a mistake". I guess you disagree with him? I think he admitted he kept quiet because he didn't want to get a subpoena--not out of concern for his sources or some high-minded journalistic privilege.

Frankly I enjoy watching the media go after each other for a change.

I just don't see it. He triggered events that caused him to go to the prosecutor about a week after the indictment. He called the source, and the source went to Fitzgerald. He quickly followed.

I am trying to understand what is unusual about Woodward's keeping quiet. No reporter, absolutely no reporter in Washington even begins to approach how connected Woodward is. The things he knows that he doesn't talk about until he is ready could fill books. In fact, they have filled many books.

His books are best sellers every time for a reason. I don't miss one anymore.

One of the best educations I ever got was from reading the Brethren. It has been a few years. I should probably read it again.

Based on what I have read, it sure sounds like he sat on some information and basically allowed some of his colleagues to be put through the wringer while he remained on the sidelines. I can see why journalists wouldn't be too appreciative of that.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I think we are in agreement, it is just a question of what you think "wrong" is.

From an article: "Though he gave testimony to the special prosecutor, Woodward refused to publicly identify his source. But he has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little."


Oh, yeah--and then he let speculation swirl that Cheney was the source.


That would seem to suggest that people's lives are being ruined, and great expense caused, when, in the end it is "much ado about nothing"--and meanwhile, Woodward plays "I know something you don't know". You may not see that as "wrong"--I do. I see it as wrong and scummy. Yes, he does make a ot of money from his books.

For those who like citations, this is the Newsweek article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...17465/site/newsweek/