Bob Woodward Book and Cognitive Dissonance? Confusion? What is Happening?

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Bob Woodward just released a book about the Trump WH.

It contains a lot of both on- and off-the-record sources discussing many things going on inside the administration.

There are people quoted by name now denying they said what they said. I understood this with the Michael Wolff thing. I do not, in any way, understand this with the Woodward book. Some may be 'X is quoted as saying Y said...' and Y is denying it, which, fine, but there are people, like in the first link, above, actually quoted directly saying they didn't say what he says they did. Sure.

It's BOB WOODWARD. In what circumstance would he not have a nice, clear tape of every conversation he had on the record, indexed and ready to go? Who thinks they can lie about what they said to Woodward and get away with it?

More than any of the revelations that have come out so far w/re the book (and this is the one I want to read), this has me utterly baffled -- people saying BOB WOODWARD is lying about what they said to him. I don't even... is it that they think people will just take their word he lied? What is happening?

Also, there are apparently at least two people who said they stole papers off Trump's desk so he'd not hear about bad, dangerous ideas and act on them. On the one hand, good? On the other hand, who put them in charge? On the other other hand better them but... I... what is happening?
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,321
Reaction score
7,113
Location
Albany, NY
I suspect that those who believe everything the orange buffon says and everything that FOX News says will buy the accounts of the interviewees lying without hesitation. We now live in a post truth world. You mentioned Cognitive Dissonance in your thread title, it is now being weaponized against the American people. It has become policy. We live in dangerous times. If Woodward produces tapes, it won't matter, they still won't believe him. Lying with impunity is the way of the future, apparently. We are doomed.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,822
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Sarah Sanders lies so much MSNBC quit broadcasting press conferences live. So she's not credible.

Kelly wouldn't be the first cabinet member who called Trump ignorant, so who cares if Kelly was one of them or not. We've all seen how ignorant Trump is for ourselves. People that imagine Trump is a clever genius don't understand the definitions of those words, or they are in denial.

And of course people still working in the White House are of course going to deny they dissed Trump behind his back. They know full well admitting such name calling will put them on Santa Trump's bad kid list.

A good con man, a good liar need not be intelligent if they have developed their con and play it well.

My hope is that it has a positive impact on the midterms. Woodward wrote a positive book about GW Bush and that didn't come off well in some circles. Maybe this is Woodward's attempt at redemption.
 
Last edited:

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,683
Reaction score
24,618
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
If Woodward produces tapes, it won't matter, they still won't believe him.

I think it's worse than this, actually. I think it won't matter if they believe him or not, they're going to keep rallying to this guy. He wasn't kidding when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
...Who thinks they can lie about what they said to Woodward and get away with it?...

Anyone and everyone in the trump admin, his enablers in Congress and elsewhere, and all of those who blindly follow him. Other than that, no one.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,521
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
He's already released the tape of Trump calling him. I presume for anyone he interviewed who tries to impugn him, it'll be the same treatment. Give Omorosa credit for showing the benefit of the release-a-tape-a-day tactic.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Bob Woodward just released a book about the Trump WH.

It's BOB WOODWARD.

...people saying BOB WOODWARD is lying about what they said to him.

but... I... what is happening?

What is happening? BOB WOODWARD has a book to sell. That is what is happening.

Woodward has been living off the bounce Watergate gave his nondescript career for years--44 years to be precise. Since All the President's Men, Woodward has carved out a nice little niche for himself as the supposed intrepid investigative journalist who doggedly pursues the story no matter who stands against him, no matter whom he discomforts and like Superman, Woodward stands for truth, justice and the American Way.

It's a crock of shit.

Woodward, forty years removed from his biggest scoop and with $5 million in the bank, isn't someone who discomforts the comfortable anymore. He's pretty comfortable himself and at his worst, he's been very effective at carrying the water for the Washington establishment he joined a long time ago.

Charles Pierce:


The latest entrant in the Mistakes Were Made sweepstakes regarding C-Plus Augustus's blundering in Iraq is journalistic giant—and stenographer to the powerful—Bob Woodward, who stopped by Fox News Sunday this weekend because he is a big-time Beltway 'ho who doesn't care what kind of riff-raff leaves the money on the dresser these days. Anyway, Bob wants to assure us that the leadership of the late Avignon Presidency were babes in the woods.

WOODWARD: I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.

Holy hell, what a foof. (Do we all owe Nixon an apology? I ask this in all seriousness because the Bob Woodward in the above quote sounds like someone waiting for that check from the Nigerian prince to clear.) The fact remains that a lot of people inside and outside government—in fact, most of the actual military and diplomatic experts in the field—told the neocon fantasts in the administration exactly what was going to happen if it decided to "kick over the hornet's nest" in Iraq. These people were ignored (The Future of Iraq project at State), marginalized (Hans Blix), or actively destroyed (Eric Shinseki). There was a reason for this. The reason was that the people who were talking to Bob Woodward wanted to deceive the nation to get what they wanted.

Joan Didion:

Washington, as rendered by Mr. Woodward, is by definition basically solid, a diorama of decent intentions in which wise if misunderstood and occasionally misled stewards will reliably prevail. Its military chiefs will be pictured, as Colin Powell was in The Commanders, thinking on the eve of war exclusively of their troops, the “kids,” the “teenagers”: a human story. The clerks of its Supreme Court will be pictured, as the clerks of the Burger court were in The Brethren, offering astute guidance as their justices negotiate the shoals of ideological error: a human story. The more available members of its foreign diplomatic corps will be pictured, as Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was in The Commanders and in Veil, gaining access to the councils of power not just because they have the oil but because of their “backslapping irreverence,” their “directness,” their exemplification of “the new breed of ambassador—activist, charming, profane”: yet another human story. Its opposing leaders will be pictured, as President Clinton and Senator Dole are in The Choice, finding common ground on the importance of mothers: the ultimate human story.

That this crude personalization works to narrow the focus, to circumscribe the range of possible discussion or speculation, is, for the people who find it useful to talk to Mr. Woodward, its point. What they have in Mr. Woodward is a widely trusted reporter, even an American icon, who can be relied upon to present a Washington in which problematic or questionable matters will be definitively resolved by the discovery, or by the demonstration that there has been no discovery, of “the smoking gun,” “the evidence.” Should such narrowly-defined “evidence” be found, he can then be relied upon to demonstrate, “fairly,” that the only fingerprints on the smoking gun are those of the one bad apple in the barrel, the single rogue agent in the tapestry of decent intentions.


“I kept coming back to the question of personal responsibility, Casey’s responsibility,” Mr. Woodward reports having mused (apparently for once ready, at the moment when he is about to visit a source on his deathbed, to question the veracity of what he has been told) before his last visit to Room C6316 at Georgetown Hospital. “For a moment, I hoped he would take himself off the hook. The only way was an admission of some kind or an apology to his colleagues or an expression of new understanding. Under the last question on ‘Key unanswered questions for Casey,’ I wrote: ‘Do you see now that it was wrong?”‘ To commit such Rosebud moments to paper is what it means to tell “the human story” at “the core,” and it is also what it means to write political pornography.

Jonathan Chait:
To reconcile Woodward’s journalistic reputation with the weird pettiness of his current role, one has to grasp the distinction between his abilities as a reporter and his abilities as an analyst. Woodward was, and remains, an elite gatherer of facts. But anybody who has seen him commit acts of political commentary on television has witnessed a painful spectacle. As an analyst, Woodward is a particular kind of awful — a Georgetown Wise Man reliably and almost invariably mouthing the conventional wisdom of the Washington Establishment.


His more recent books often compile interesting facts, but how Woodward chooses to package those facts has come to represent a barometric measure of a figure’s standing within the establishment. His 1994 account of Bill Clinton’s major budget bill, which in retrospect was a major success, told a story of chaos and indecision. He wrote a fulsome love letter to Alan Greenspan, “Maestro,” at the peak of the Fed chairman’s almost comic prestige. In 2003, when George W. Bush was still a decisive and indispensable war leader, Woodward wrote a heroic treatment of the Iraq War. After Bush’s reputation had collapsed, Woodward packaged essentially the same facts into a devastating indictment. Woodward’s book on the 2011 debt negotiations was notable for arguing that Obama scotched a potential deficit deal. The central argument has since been debunked by no less a figure than Eric Cantor, who admitted to Ryan Lizza that he killed the deal.

Washington Times:

Bob Woodward, the famed investigative reporter who worked alongside Carl Bernstein in breaking the 1970s Watergate scandal, said Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s “habit of secrecy” concerning her private email server is a “very serious issue” that may offer a glimpse at how nontransparent her presidency would be.


When asked on “CBS This Morning” what Congress should look for in the FBI’s interview notes with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Woodward replied, “God knows,” according to a clip obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.


“I mean, there are thousands of emails that the FBI said that they uncovered that were not turned over,” he said. “There could be something there, maybe not.”


Mr. Woodward said the Democratic presidential nominee has made light of something that he considers a “very serious issue.”


“So many unanswered questions,” he said. “Let’s face it, Hillary Clinton just has not come totally clean on this. And she would serve herself well if she would do that.”

Gawker:

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's investigation into the origins of the Watergate break-in—which took place 40 years ago yesterday—is one of the most highly mythologized episodes in the history of journalism. It represents the Platonic ideal of what journalism-with-a-capital-J ought to be, at least according to its high priesthood—sober, careful young men doggedly following the story wherever it leads and holding power to account, without fear or favor. It was also a sloppy, ethically dubious project the details of which would mortify any of the smug high priests of journalism that flourished in its wake. The actual Watergate investigation could never have survived the legacy it helped create.


"t was a dicey, high-wire thing to do. But that's what we did. That's what the whole enterprise was."


That's Bob Woodward, defending himself recently to New York magazine after writer Jeff Himmelman uncovered evidence that—contrary to their previous claims—Woodward and Bernstein had received crucial help from a grand juror on the Watergate case. "Dicey" and "high-wire" aren't really words usually ascribed to Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate reporting. The popular myth features them politely and insistently pushing their story forward, ever mindful that the reputation of the Post and of the entire newspaper business—the future of the Republic, even—rested on their actions and behavior. They were methodical paragons. "You're no Woodward and Bernstein" has become the insult of choice (believe me, I've heard it plenty) hurled at reporters who were deemed insufficiently careful, accurate, or professional.


The popularity of their heroic account helped swell enrollments at journalism schools across the nation as eager young college graduates came to view reporting not as a lowly trade but as a noble profession. Those schools, in turn, instilled a sense of rectitude and sanctimony in their young recruits, based in part on the model that young Woodward and Bernstein presented. That carefully cultivated sanctimony, in turn, helped fuel the right-wing critique of the news media—which was always based more on the hypocritical distance between journalists' public claims to abstract fairness and their actual human behaviors than on any actual transgressions—that has thoroughly poisoned politico-media culture.


So imagine, if you will, how the ombudspersons of our day would have reacted if they had learned that reporters for the Washington Post had agreed to adhere to "guidelines" and "ground rules" laid out by Ken Starr governing how and when they could interview potential witnesses in his investigation? How would Media Matters react if a Fox News reporter got caught privately advising Rep. Darrell Issa on fruitful leads to pursue in his Fast and Furious inquiry? How would Fox News react if it emerged that New York Times reporters, in pursuit of an interview with Obama for a story about his "Kill List," had agreed to submit their questions in advance?


Woodward and Bernstein, of course, did all the above and more—including burning confidential sources, illicitly accessing phone and credit card records of investigative targets, colluding with congressional and law enforcement investigators, and impersonating sources in order to trick targets into talking—in the course of their Watergate investigation. These are not secrets—they're all right there, laid out in full view in All the President's Men, which at times reads more like a confessional than a victory lap. To their credit, the reporters seemed as concerned with unburdening themselves about the corners they cut and mistakes they made as they were with soaking in the glory of their fresh kill. The "diciness" of the whole affair comes through loud and clear, even though it has subsequently been sanctified by the priesthood.



If there were a Mt. Rushmore of journalism, many would say Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein should be chiseled into immortality and I was once one of those who would have said it. I was hardly immune to the siren song of being a crusading muckraking reporter who risked it all to bring down a corrupt president. Nixon was one sort of a bad guy and Trump is another and Russian collusion is not the same thing as a third-rate burglary. Fear is not going to bring down Donald Trump. It's just another book about a dysfunctional presidency and Woodward's name on the dust cover gives me no more reason to rush to the nearest Barnes & Noble than did other tell-alls by James Comey, Sean Spencer or Omarosa.

For all the adulation, at some point it would be best for all of us to remember Robert Redford was already a star long before he played Bob Woodward. Woodward has lived off his greatest hit for so long he thinks he's still a star long after Robert Redford stopped being one.

I'll take a wide pass on this. :e2yawn:
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that it's Bob Woodward, who has been and remains, a working journalist of, you know, some renown, who says he quoted people.

A sportswriter who starts out calling Woodward a 'ho loses me right there, but again, regardless of peoples' opinions of Woodward's opinions, or slants, or anything else, the thread referenced the fact that people said he misquoted them.

There are a couple sure fucking things in journalism:

If Bob Woodward says he'll protect you as a source? He'll protect you as a source.

If he says you said something? You said it, and he's got a tape to prove it.

He doesn't fucking lie about what he puts between quote marks.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,665
Reaction score
7,356
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Diana said it: Post-truth. It doesn't matter what actually was said. It only matters what they are saying RIGHT NOW. Any right now.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Beyond the ad hominem comments about Woodward, it is certainly worth noting that nothing like this ever happened in the Presidency of Barack Obama. Or George W. Bush. Or even Bill Clinton. Nor in any of their predecessors in my lifetime. Nor in any of their predecessors. The level of sheer craziness that currently infests the White House is without historical comparison, by a huge margin.

caw
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,297
Reaction score
15,989
Location
Australia.
Beyond the ad hominem comments about Woodward, it is certainly worth noting that nothing like this ever happened in the Presidency of Barack Obama. Or George W. Bush. Or even Bill Clinton. Nor in any of their predecessors in my lifetime. Nor in any of their predecessors. The level of sheer craziness that currently infests the White House is without historical comparison, by a huge margin.

caw
Yes, thank you for that.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Yeah that's kind of the thing about this one -- not that we didn't know this stuff was going on, really but... if he says it is, it really actually is, at least to the extent that people are willing to lie about it boldfaced if it's not. This isn't Wolffe or Omarosa embellishing stuff. This insanity is very carefully sourced and fact-checked and people are stealing papers off the Resolute Desk and just randomly agreeing to things they have no intention of mentioning again so an ignorant manchild doesn't assassinate sovereign leaders on a whim.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Remember, for them to keep their jobs, it doesn't matter what you or I think of what they're saying. It matters what TRUMP thinks of what they're saying. And as a dyed-in-the-wool liar, he just has to hear "I didn't say that, boss! It's those lying libs!" and all is forgiven, because he doesn't have a firm grasp of "truth," just expediency.
 

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
Aides sought to thwart Trump on NAFTA, new book reveals

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-woodward-book-says-trump-aide-privately-called-him-idiot/

A forthcoming book by journalist Bob Woodward says U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief of staff privately called Mr. Trump an “idiot,” and aides plucked sensitive documents off the President’s desk to keep him from taking rash actions, including withdrawing from the North American free-trade agreement.

Geez. Really? Trump completely forgot about pissing off Canada AFTER aides removed documents from his view? Did they put back the pacifier?

-cb
 
Last edited:

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that it's Bob Woodward, who has been and remains, a working journalist of, you know, some renown, who says he quoted people.

A sportswriter who starts out calling Woodward a 'ho loses me right there, but again, regardless of peoples' opinions of Woodward's opinions, or slants, or anything else, the thread referenced the fact that people said he misquoted them.

There are a couple sure fucking things in journalism:

If Bob Woodward says he'll protect you as a source? He'll protect you as a source.

If he says you said something? You said it, and he's got a tape to prove it.

He doesn't fucking lie about what he puts between quote marks.

I don't always agree with Cornflake, but I agree with every word in this post.

Woodward says he has proof, and I believe it. He has proven to me over the years that he is as professional a journalist as anyone.
 

talktidy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
896
Reaction score
86
Location
Fabulous Sweyn's Eye
Trump may not be a reader, but he's all over the twitterverse. Since a ton of revelations from Woodward's book are also now occupying prime twitter territory, I'm wondering when one may expect a Trump night of the long knives?
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that it's Bob Woodward, who has been and remains, a working journalist of, you know, some renown, who says he quoted people.

A sportswriter who starts out calling Woodward a 'ho loses me right there, but again, regardless of peoples' opinions of Woodward's opinions, or slants, or anything else, the thread referenced the fact that people said he misquoted them.

There are a couple sure fucking things in journalism:

If Bob Woodward says he'll protect you as a source? He'll protect you as a source.

If he says you said something? You said it, and he's got a tape to prove it.

He doesn't fucking lie about what he puts between quote marks.

I don't always agree with Cornflake, but I agree with every word in this post.

Woodward says he has proof, and I believe it. He has proven to me over the years that he is as professional a journalist as anyone.

Nobody's questioning whether Woodward is a professional journalist. He is, and a Pulitzer Prize winning one at that. I simply refuse to gloss over some Woodward's more egregious flaws and failings as a professional journalist.

Exhibit A of Woodward's sins of omission is his only non-Washington book, Wired: The Short Life and Wild Times of John Belushi. Written in 1984, Wired is a well-researched, authoritative, and pitilessly harsh dismissal of John Belushi as little more than a flabby drug freak. Woodward's contempt for Belushi's lifestyle practically drips off the page and at the time of its publication it was widely criticized for it's moralistic critique of a comedic shooting star.
It all started in May. Wired: The Short Life & Fast Times of John Belushi, by Bob Woodward, was officially published on June 4th, 1984, two years after the comedian died of an overdose of cocaine and heroin. Judy Jacklin Belushi, and the friends who circle around her like satellites, had received advance copies of the book, and the entire situation was a mess from the start. There had been such a sense of expectation about not only had John Belushi’s widow initiated the project, but she had also read her diaries to Woodward and persuaded her friends to talk— even the famous ones, like Dan Aykroyd and John Landis. She had, above all else, hoped for a sympathetic biography. Instead, she got 432 pages of cold facts, the majority of them drug related and ugly. “The man in Wired is not the man I knew,” Jacklin said. And with that began the controversy.

She had already had misgivings. “There were innumerable problems with Bob getting the manuscript to me,” Jacklin said later. “It was, ‘Oh, your sister is supposed to send you a copy…. No, it was Federal Expressed to you.’ That went on for two weeks.” Yet when she finally did receive Wired, she didn’t read it immediately — she was working on another project Two days later, Jacklin read a part of the book (“It’s very long, you know”), and although she had been warned by her sister, Pam Jacklin, who had been involved with Wired from its inception, to expect the worst, Judy was “hopeful for the rest of the book. It didn’t seem terribly negative. But two days later, I read more. By then, it was pretty disturbing.”


It wasn’t a fair portrait of John, she said. There was no joy in the book, no balance. “I loved John because he was warm,” Jacklin said. “He was a very likable person. He had a terrific presence, and Woodward missed all that.” Wired, Jacklin claimed, was only about drugs and madness, and it wasn’t even accurate. “People claim it’s all facts,” she said. “It’s not all facts. It’s a bunch of people’s opinions and memories put forth as facts. And when someone like Bob Woodward, who everyone thinks of as an ace reporter, uses these people as expert sources, it becomes very frightening. He’ll quote someone like, say, Carrie Fisher, who was on the Blues Brothers set maybe ten days, saying, ‘Well, it looked like he was doing four grams a day.’ Well, we’re talking about my life here. I was there. He may have it that way in his notes, but it’s wrong.”


In the beginning of June, Jacklin put forth her arguments in People magazine, and later on the Today Show and Good Morning America. She often sounded confused, but her friends were less conflicted.


“Trash,” proclaimed Dan Aykroyd in the June 7th Philadelphia Inquirer, while on the road to promote Ghostbusters. “Exploitation, pulp trash…. I think to delve into that sordid, tragic story in the way [Woodward] did was unforgivable. None of us knew what he was really up to…. Initially, I was against doing a book of any kind. But it was Bob Woodward, you know, and I thought, hey, this might actually turn out to be a class act.”


“The man is a ghoul,” claimed Jack Nicholson later in Interview magazine, “and an exploiter of emotionally disturbed widows…. Here’s a guy who has a reputation, right? I’ve obviously seen this kind of work before — it’s the lowest… This guy is actually finished. I believe that.”


The hue and cry was heard even from celebrities not in the book (Taxi‘s Tony Danza: “What I didn’t like about the Bob Woodward book is that it didn’t show what a great guy John was”) and those who were only marginal characters (comedian Richard Belzer: “He betrayed Judy’s trust; she went to him because he’s so respected, so John’s life would not be sensationalized, and now that’s what happened”).


Shortly after Aykroyd’s interview in Philadelphia, he stopped talking to print journalists. He refused an interview with People, reportedly complaining that the magazine had portrayed Jacklin as a “whining, hysterical widow,” even though her byline had appeared on the story. Aykroyd clearly wanted out of the picture and stayed away from Wired in subsequent TV interviews

In the meantime, Bob Woodward was busily expressing shock and surprise over what could now be officially termed the Wired Controversy. By early June, he was out promoting the book, which had been excerpted in Playboy and serialized in about fifty newspapers (including, of course, the Washington Post, Woodward’s mother ship). Wired was receiving mostly negative reviews — the New York Times book-review section attacked Woodward’s “magnifying-glass-on-credit-card-receipt approach” as extremely ineffectual; Kirkus Reviews called Wired a “pointless docudrama”; and Time slashed away, claiming, “The entire book is basically an exercise in casting: get the country’s star investigative reporter to tackle ‘the unanswered questions’ about the grubby death of America’s favorite counterculture comedian…. But Wired, so full of details, is so short on insight that Belushi never becomes any larger or more understandable than a gifted guy who pigged out on success.” The slagging only fueled the ruckus — and increased sales. Wired, it appeared, had a powerful allure. After an original print run of 175,000 copies, Simon and Schuster, Wired‘s publisher, rushed another 100,000 into print.

Jacklin pauses, now wiping nonexistent particles off the table in front of her. “Woodward gives you that ‘trust me, trust me’ feeling. The ‘yes, I understand’ type of thing, and I believed him. He seemed so honest. He would say over and over, ‘John was a wonderful man. We must tell his story.’ He lied to me, and I trusted him. I was like a Pavlovian dog. I was calling him up whenever anyone said anything weird about him or John or the story, and he would reassure me. He’d kinda laugh and say, ‘It’s like the game “telephone.” When you hear something that bothers you, you should phone me.’ I was completely under his influence. I was being honest and open, so I thought he was being the same, but that wasn’t Bob at all. I have no problems calling Bob Woodward a liar.”


The widow and friends of John Belushi wouldn't be the first to ever place their trust in a BIG NAME writer only to be bitterly disappointed when the book comes out and it reads like a hatchet job. Woodward wasn't obligated to write a book Judy Jacklin Belushi was going to fall in love with. He was obligated to write a honest and factual book. Few of the criticisms of Wired can point to overt misstatements or flat-out mistakes made by Woodward. What they can find ample proof of is how Woodward focused obsessively on Belushi's drug addiction to the exclusion of nearly everything else about the man.

“When Bob realized he wasn’t going to one day be Ben Bradlee [executive editor of the Washington Post],” says a friend, “I think he got scared. He told me at one point, ‘I have to do books. Books get remembered.’ “

But a book on John Belushi hardly seemed like a Woodward project. It was entertainment and L.A., not politics and D.C. One theory was that Woodward’s interest in Belushi was sparked by his friendship with Bernstein, whose self-destructive tendencies are public knowledge. “I doubt that,” says Alice Mayhew, who knows both men and has edited all of Woodward’s books. “If Bob had thought anyone would make that connection, he never would have written the book in the first place.”


Another associate has a different theory: “I suspect Bob saw the Belushi book as a challenge. I think he was intrigued by the idea of exploring the dark side of somebody else’s soul, but there’s a problem: Bob isn’t all that introspective. He’s a wonderful machine for gathering facts. He’s not good at insight, and in this case, he wanted to go beyond the facts, and he just couldn’t He couldn’t see — the gray areas were too immense — and the facts about Belushi became his only refuge.”

It must have been a challenge for a straight arrow like Woodward to dig through the wreckage of Belushi's crazy life, but while he got his facts straight he told the wrong story. It would two decades before someone would sift through Woodward's deconstruction of Belushi to try to figure out how the famed wordsmith was so wide off the mark.

Two years after Belushi died, Bob Woodward published Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi. While the Watergate sleuth might seem an odd choice to tackle such a subject, the book came about because both he and Belushi grew up in the same small town of Wheaton, Ill. They had friends in common. Belushi, who despised Richard Nixon, was a big Woodward fan, and after he died, his widow, Judy Belushi, approached Woodward in his role as a reporter for the Washington Post. She had questions about the LAPD’s handling of Belushi’s death and asked Woodward to look into it. He took the access she offered and used it to write a scathing, lurid account of Belushi’s drug use and death.



When Wired came out, many of Belushi’s friends and family denounced it as biased and riddled with factual errors. “Exploitative, pulp trash,” in the words of Dan Aykroyd. Wired was so wrong, Belushi’s manager said, it made you think Nixon might be innocent. Woodward insisted the book was balanced and accurate. “I reported this story thoroughly,” he told Rolling Stone. Of the book’s critics, he said, “I think they wish I had created a portrait of someone who was larger than life, larger than he was, and that, somehow, this portrait would all come out different. But that’s a fantasy, not journalism.” Woodward being Woodward, he was given the benefit of the doubt. Belushi’s reputation never recovered.



Twenty years later, in 2004, Judy Belushi hired me, then an aspiring comedy writer, to help her with a new biography of John, this one titled Belushi: A Biography. As her coauthor, I handled most of the legwork, including all of the interviews and most of the research. What started as a fun project turned out to be a rather fascinating and unique experiment. Over the course of a year, page by page, source by source, I re-reported and rewrote one of Bob Woodward’s books. As far as I know, it’s the only time that’s ever been done.

Wired is an anomaly in the Woodward catalog, the only book he’s ever written about a subject other than Washington. As such, it’s rarely cited by his critics. But Wired’s outlier status is the very thing that makes it such a fascinating piece of Woodwardology. Because he was forced to work outside of his comfort zone, his strengths and his weaknesses can be seen in sharper relief. In Hollywood, his sources weren’t top secret and confidential. They were some of the most famous people in America. The methodology behind the book is right out there in the open, waiting for someone to do exactly what I did: take it apart and see how Woodward does what he does.



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.

Woodward also makes peculiar decisions about what facts he uses as evidence. His detractors like to say that he’s little more than a stenographer—and they’re right. In Wired, he takes what he is told and simply puts it down in chronological order with no sense of proportionality, nuance, or understanding.



John Belushi was a recreational drug user for roughly one-third of his 33 years, and he was a hard-core addict for the last five or six, from which you can subtract one solid year of sobriety. Yet in Wired, which has 403 pages of narrative text, the total number of pages that make some reference to drugs is something like 295, or nearly 75 percent. Belushi’s drug use is surely a key part of his life—drugs are what ended it, after all—but shouldn’t a writer also be interested in what led his subject to this substance abuse in the first place? If you want to know why someone was a cocaine addict for the last six years of his life, the answer is probably hiding somewhere in the first 27 years. But Woodward chooses to largely ignore that period, and in doing so he again misses the point. In terms of illuminating its subject, Wired is about as useful as a biography of Buddy Holly that only covers time he spent on airplanes.



Of all the people I interviewed, SNL writer and current Sen. Al Franken, referencing his late comedy partner Tom Davis, offered the most apt description of Woodward’s one-sided approach to the drug use in Belushi’s story: “Tom Davis said the best thing about Wired,” Franken told me. “He said it’s as if someone wrote a book about your college years and called it Puked. And all it was about was who puked, when they puked, what they ate before they puked and what they puked up. No one read Dostoevsky, no one studied math, no one fell in love, and nothing happened but people puking.”



To get a sense of what Franken’s getting at, here’s a couple of sample entries from Wired’s index:



Belushi, John:
as Blues Brother, 16, 22, 89, 139-42, 146-47, 161-62, 181-82, 186, 206, 334-35




Belushi, John:
cocaine habit of, 15, 17-33, 64-65, 76, 81, 93-94, 100, 103-05, 110, 128, 142-43, 145, 155-56, 159-60, 163-65, 170, 187-89, 193, 205-6, 218-19, 221, 243-44, 247-50, 262, 273, 297, 298, 301, 303, 306-8, 310-11, 316-53, 359, 361-65, 372-74, 385-89, 392-93, 395-400, 413-14, 422




That’s just the coke. It goes on to include “marijuana smoked by,” “mescaline taken by,” and “mushrooms (psilocybin) eaten by.” And those are just the drugs that start with the letter “M.”



Of course, John Belushi did do all of those drugs, and there’s little doubt that the drug stories Woodward uses actually happened. But he just goes around piling up these stories with no regard for what is actually relevant. Just to compare and contrast: At one point, Woodward stops the narrative cold to document a single 24-hour coke binge for the better part of eight pages. Nothing much happens in these eight pages except for Belushi going around L.A. doing a bunch of coke; it’s not a key moment in Belushi’s life, but it takes on an outsized weight in Wired’s narrative simply because Woodward happened to find the limo driver who drove Belushi around and witnessed the whole thing, providing him with a lot of juicy if not particularly important information. Meanwhile, the funeral of Belushi’s grandmother—which was the pivotal moment when he hit bottom, resolved to get clean, and kicked off his year of hard-fought sobriety—that event is glossed over in a mere 42 words, and a quarter of those words are dedicated to the cost of the plane tickets to fly to the funeral ($4,066, per Woodward, as if it matters to the story).



Whenever people ask me about John Belushi and the subject of Wired comes up, I say it’s like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn’t very good at playing basketball.



It’s not that Woodward is a manipulator with a partisan agenda. He doesn’t alter key evidence in order to serve a particular thesis. Inconsequential details about rehearsing movie dialogue are rendered just as ham-handedly as critical facts about Belushi’s cocaine addiction. Woodward has an unmatched skill for digging up information, but he doesn’t know what to do with that information once he finds it.

Woodward scurried back to Washington and the sort of stories he knew best. Relying on anonymous sources and inside information to explore into the dark underbelly of American politics. It's been a very successful career move for Woodward making him both rich and famous.

But he's not infallible and not everything he writes is Pulitzer Prize material. I haven't read Fear and I may or may not depending how long the waiting list for it is at my local library.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are subjective and rarely definitive. Bob Woodward is a great journalist. Period.

He's still not infallible. And everyone lies.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
I'm not sure that he told "the wrong story" about Belushi. It wasn't sympathetic, but he wasn't under any obligation to be. It may not be the story that his friends and families wanted, it may not be compassionate, but that isn't an essential part of reporting.

You say that taking coke wasn't "a big part of Belushi's life," but it was a big part of his death. In an era where coke was becoming the new weed, and a lot of people were getting hurt as a result, it was probably harder to pitch it as "tormented genius driven to use drugs, not really his fault."
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Again, I don't understand the relevance of people's opinions about Woodward's books. People like them or don't -- so? The administration and people quoted are saying they did not say what Woodward says they did. That's about as possible as Trump being able to locate Iran on a map.

I said if he says you said something, you said it and he can prove it.

If he says he'll protect a source, he will protect the source.

Whether someone thinks he was right about how he portrayed Belushi .... eh?
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,924
Reaction score
5,294
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Again, I don't understand the relevance of people's opinions about Woodward's books. People like them or don't -- so? The administration and people quoted are saying they did not say what Woodward says they did. That's about as possible as Trump being able to locate Iran on a map.

I said if he says you said something, you said it and he can prove it.

If he says he'll protect a source, he will protect the source.

Whether someone thinks he was right about how he portrayed Belushi .... eh?

Seems like whether or not it was right, it was accurate.

That's pretty much what matters in this case.
 

R.A. Lundberg

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
68
Reaction score
12
Location
Refrigerator box under an overpass
I think it's worse than this, actually. I think it won't matter if they believe him or not, they're going to keep rallying to this guy. He wasn't kidding when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.

There's a huge feeling among conservatives that they've gotten the short end of the stick, politically, for the last eight years, especially from the mainstream media. And not just a little bit, either. You hear constantly the quote from Barack Obama about "Bitterly clinging to guns and religion" and the one from Hillary about Trump supporters being "A basket of Deplorables". The name "Bitter clinger" and "Deplorable" are worn as badges of pride by many. Both sides have set up a "We vs They" mentality among followers, and neither side wants to talk to the other, just denigrate and scorn the opposing side. Hey, when you call more or less half the electorate "Deplorable", there are attitudes that are going to be influenced on both sides, and that has consequences.
Trust me, these folks? They see the faults and foibles of the man. They aren't blind. But he's their champion. He infuriates the liberals and that's good enough for them.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,665
Reaction score
7,356
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Trust me, these folks? They see the faults and foibles of the man. They aren't blind. But he's their champion. He infuriates the liberals and that's good enough for them.

Trump is a means to an end for them, and always has been. I can't see any of my friends who support him inviting him to dinner, but they see what they think he's going to be able to do worth the price of his character. They're THAT frustrated.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
There's a huge feeling among conservatives that they've gotten the short end of the stick, politically, for the last eight years, especially from the mainstream media. And not just a little bit, either. You hear constantly the quote from Barack Obama about "Bitterly clinging to guns and religion" and the one from Hillary about Trump supporters being "A basket of Deplorables". The name "Bitter clinger" and "Deplorable" are worn as badges of pride by many. Both sides have set up a "We vs They" mentality among followers, and neither side wants to talk to the other, just denigrate and scorn the opposing side. Hey, when you call more or less half the electorate "Deplorable", there are attitudes that are going to be influenced on both sides, and that has consequences.
Trust me, these folks? They see the faults and foibles of the man. They aren't blind. But he's their champion. He infuriates the liberals and that's good enough for them.

Except that's all nonsensical -- not your post or what you're saying, the idea that the mainstream media (whatever the hell that's supposed to even mean, as FOX is often top of the ratings for news) has given conservatives "the short end of the stick" (and I really don't know what that's meant to mean either -- they report what's happening), because of one thing Obama said close to a decade ago, and Hillary's comment, which wasn't about half the electorate by any means, but a certain segment of the population ... is nonsensical.

Also, given the things conservatives have said, say, endlessly about "the Liberals" and it's all just manufactured outrage to justify racism, misogyny, etc., imo.

I absolutely agree "he infuriates... and that's good enough for them,' is at the heart of it. It's all about 'making liberals cry/getting snowflakes upset/etc.,' which also makes no sense, as see the outrage when, like, they thought Letterman made a joke about Palin's daughter, but that's it. That's all there is. It's not about policies (save racist, misogynistic ones); it's not about ideas, or opinions, or governing. It's about they're angry for whatever reason (the sense that white people, white men, and especially white men without much education, will not be able to retain the power they've traditionally had over other people, I'd guess) and fuck everyone who isn't them.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,924
Reaction score
5,294
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
Trust me, these folks? They see the faults and foibles of the man. They aren't blind. But he's their champion. He infuriates the liberals and that's good enough for them.

You can tell a lot about people by who they choose as their champion.

They consider it a triumph to elevate an unqualified lying bullying intellectually lazy bootlicking cowardly chickenhawk arrogant rapist and philanderer whose sole appeal is that his being placed in power upsets Left wingers and Progressives to a position of power where he can cause wars and environmental damage and untold harm?

Yeah, that says a lot about that crowd.