Woodward defines journalism as reporting Bush administration falsehoods

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511230012

Woodward's definition of "journalism"? Reporting Bush administration falsehoods as "their point of view"

Appearing on the November 21 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward discussed his book Plan of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq (Simon & Schuster, April 2004). Responding to concerns about his objectivity given the close relationships he cultivated with senior Bush administration officials while researching the book, Woodward said that the book "has some pretty tough stuff in it. At the same time, the president or others {in the government} get to express their point of view." He added: "I believe that's journalism."


But what Woodward was actually allowing his administration sources to do was something far more problematic: Under the guise of expressing their "point of view," administration officials were given a forum in which to make numerous questionable and even categorically false statements about the Iraq war, without refutation. In many instances, Woodward knew or should have known of evidence that undermined or refuted their "views." Below are several of the more flagrant examples of such statements from Plan of Attack concerning the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence to make the case that war with Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The Office of Special Plans and the Iraqi National Congress

In the ongoing debate about whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in the buildup to the Iraq war, the administration and its defenders have repeatedly claimed that Congress had access to the "same intelligence" as the White House in assessing that Iraq was a serious threat. As Media Matters for America has documented, one key fact undermining such a claim is that the administration had exclusive access to alternative sources of intelligence upon which it reportedly relied significantly for prewar intelligence: the Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans (OSP) and Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG) -- both run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith -- and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi.

Woodward devoted little attention to the OSP and INC in Plan of Attack. However, when he did reference the two intelligence sources on pages 288 and 289*, he did so in the context of repeating dubious claims by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Arguing that the OSP "couldn't possibly pollute the intelligence process," Libby claimed that its findings were "not given to the president or vice president." Similarly, Libby dismissed the "myth" that the INC's Chalabi had a "direct channel to pass intelligence to the Pentagon or to Cheney," alleging that "{a}ll of Chalabi's information went to the CIA. They could use it or not use it as they saw fit."

But contrary to Woodward's claim on Larry King Live, his book was not "tough" on Libby's attempt to dismiss the importance of the OSP and INC. Woodward was simply repeating claims that could have been rebutted with evidence that was publicly available well before Woodward's book went to print in April 2004.

[shance]

1. I think people need to ask "why" Woodward would do this?

Delving deeper into Woodward's history, one will find he is not the hero the Corporate sponsored/taxpayer funded media paints him to be.

He is bought and paid for, like other journalists who are protecting this Administration and who were hired to promote and sell the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else this Administration is told to invade.

[Kagemusha]

2. Let's recognize he's not the only one.

The press has forgotten why it exists and has all these fancy privileges in the first place.

[tularetom]

3. Woodward has become famous for

the seemingly endless series of kissass books he has written about bush. The rationalization given by the MSM is that he has to write this drivel to maintain his access to those in power. But yet I don't recall that he wrote any kissass books about Clinton. Was he not concerned with maintaining his access then? Or is he really just a slicker Armstrong Williams?

[applegrove]

4. Woodward is still getting "inside information" to write books on the WH.

As much as I dislike his "kissy assed" responce to people undoing America - I would like him to have access to them. So someone can tell the truth. Even beyond how Woodward interprets it at the time - he does give us facts that are important. He - pretty much alone - gave us Rumsfield undoing the battle plans for Iraq by attacking the assumptions of Generals - as to # of troops required for Iraq (Rumsfield cut it down to almost half the number of boots on the ground). And that tells us much.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Woodward does not have access.

He's one of them.

[applegrove]

6. Oh - he is writing books and getting tidpits we do not have. So he

morphs himself into one of them. I'll agree with that. He likely thinks there is a greater good.

At the very least his reporting give info to those investigating the lyars in the Rove WH.