On Sunday’s episode of NBC‘s Chris Matthews Show (4/3/11), the panel actually talked about criticism of the mainstream media, with some citing the media’s Iraq War debacle as a major factor in the rise of blogosphere-based media criticism.
The discussion got somewhat confused along the way, as this segued into a discussion of the entirely unrelated phenomenon of Republican political candidates who do not like to speak to journalists.
Then the Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward weighed in with a solution. He explained that you can get in good with politicians—I mean, do investigative journalism—if you follow his simple advice: Tell your subjects exactly what you’re going to ask them ahead of time, giving them time to come up with answers, and then print their answers.
WOODWARD: I think the survival of the so-called mainstream media has to do with quality. And if you assemble a bunch of questions and go to a candidate and say, “Look, I’m serious. I really want to ask about this,” and you take them as seriously as they take themselves—and believe me, they all take themselves seriously.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
WOODWARD: And you’ve done your homework, they—and you’re fair-minded and neutral, they are going to engage. When I’ve done these books on Bush and Obama, I send in—I hate to disclose trade craft here—20-page memos saying, this is what I want to ask about.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
WOODWARD: People say, well, you’re telling them—you’re tipping them off. And I say, yes. I want them to do some homework themselves. I want them to be fully engaged. And I think you can do that with lots of work. And—but if it’s just, we like to come in and chat about the news of the day, we’ll get stiffed.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, they don’t need—it’s too wild, it’s too crazy.
WOODWARD: Yeah.
Today the Washington Post published a tribute to David Broder that featured a few former politicians recalling how Broder was remarkably interested in talking to them. All agreed that Broder was the kind of reporter who wanted to know what they were thinking.
That’s a great way to make friends with powerful people. Whether it produces good journalism is another matter entirely. The same can be said of Woodward’s advice, which is particularly strange coming after a discussion of the media’s Iraq failures. Getting too close to official sources was exactly the problem then; it’s unlikely to be the key to the corporate media’s “survival.” But it’s worked wonders for Bob Woodward.
The Watergate fig leaf long ago wilted, exposing Woodward’s true calling:
Sycophantic stenographer to power
Nixon’s laughing bitterly in hell.
Let me make sure I’ve got this:
1. Telegraph your questions to your target.
2. Give target plenty of time to compose a load of bullshit.
3. Print load of bullshit as-is.
4. Pulitzer(?)
Jeezus, what a tool.
Btw, anybody else here missing nytimes.com since they went behind the paywall?
It’s all Fluff, take the books he wrote about Bush. If he the tough questions about Cheney/Rumsie and Bush how they were the architects of this made up war to get Saddam. They know Curveball’s info was false. They put Powell on the platform to give the World misinformation about WMD. It was a con game and the GOP, World fell for it. NOT one news network, except for 60 mins devoted time to Curveball lies. I’ve had it with the news networks. NPR, Cspan, LInks and Al Jazerra give more than any others. Web site like The Truth, Fair, and Smirking Chimp lay it on the line daily. The internet, blackberries, facebook, twitter changed Egypt. The GOP will work on these internet site, if they get NPR off and others. They are lairs, cheats and evil.
The profession of journalism is to investigate and report what you’ve found. Woodward and most Journalism Schools have forgotten that, and are in the business of public relations– a travesty. – George Beres
Mike, thank you so much, you have nailed it, and I am grateful.
Oh, and Doug, you also nailed it with the “Sycophantic stenographer to power.” It is what it is and no other.
And all that Chris Mathews can say is a few yeahs and other suck up stuff. After the initial topic of MSM staying the party line on the Iraq war could have illuminated many foibles of the press if only they had “pressed” the issues.
I have not read Bob Woodward but I do not feel I have lost anything.
“Getting too close to official sources… worked wonders for Bob Woodward.”
Indeed, that is certainly true. Both qualitatively and quantitatively, those wonders have quite possibly worked for Mr. Woodward far beyond most peoples’ wildest dreams — or their remotest awareness (much less understanding) of the factual circumstances.
*****In light of this post and discussion thread, may I politely direct anyone interested in Mr. Woodward’s “unique” career path to “Family of Secrets,” by Russ Baker (Bloomsbury Press, 2009) â┚¬” specifically, to pp. 204-209, 235, 238, 242, and 246-248.*****
Whether or not you agree with Mr. Baker’s conclusions, his supporting documentation is meticulous and thorough. At the very least, it will give you pause to seriously reconsider the near-universally accepted conventional wisdom regarding the narrative which comprises Mr. Woodward’s C.V.
In the broad, mainstream American consciousness, he is the ultimate “Midwestern Boy Scout” of a newspaper reporter… The “human tape recorder,” so trusted without qualification by those in the corridors of Power that most are magically willing to open up to him — and only to him… Whose integrity is so utterly beyond doubt that to even question it would be deemed by many as nearly treasonable… And because, in a circumstance of national trauma some 35+ years ago, we took for granted that his integrity is beyond question and collectively designated him THE Scribe For Life… THE trusted Keeper of Our Political Mysteries… THE Teller of Our Modern Publicly Private Stories. On the basis of *one* story — solely on the basis of the Watergate trauma — by popular acclaim (and a most-likely-unknowing boost from Robert Redford), Mr. Woodward became our modern-day national Political Bard for Life.
But who fact-checks the Bard? Because of the nature of his “sources”, who *could* fact-check him — or them?
For that matter, when was the last time you heard *anyone* ask Mr. Woodward anything other than total softball questions?
If it were deemed necessary (or desirable) to shape a society’s perception of its own history… How better to accomplish that than to establish an exclusive, folksy and beloved — that is, so “faux familiar” as to be considered automatically unimpeachable — Chief Storyteller?
Regards,
–S.F.
For more:
http://www.familyofsecrets.com
http://www.WhoWhatWhy.com
http://www.russbaker.com
Weird to believe(or that woodward believes) you can get the real truth out of men who’s profession is to talk circles around the truth unless it benefits them personally.I think I understand that he is saying if you don’t throw questions in a gotcha style, and let them prepare ,you may get a more concise answer.Given;but that presupposes you are dealing with an honest broker.In politics that is a leap of faith.
Remember Clinton breaking his oath as an officer of the court ,and the president when he lied under oath and declared “he did not have sex” with Ms Luinski.In reality he had been given the pre questions.Under sex was a specification that indicated this dealt with Vaginal intercourse.Well hell that means he never had sex right?This is the crux of the matter in dealing with these slippery characters. Sometimes the gotcha moment is all ya got. But Woodward wants the interview.He fact checks and levels charges later.Wether this is better journalism is debatable.It does increase access.