The Good Word On Woodward?
Bob Woodward has been writing books about the ongoing presidential scene for some years now. What do I think of them? Don't know, don't read 'em.
But a lot of people do. They're bestsellers. So now he's planning a book on the Obama administration, and some claim the White House is nervous.
I have no idea if that's true, but what does interest me is how people plan to receive the book. So I read the first 10 comments on the story at The New Republic to see what people were saying. Here are some excerpts:
Woodward is an a$$.. he practically invented "gotcha" journalism.. 'bout time someone tried to kick him to the curb
It seems to me that the Administration is incredibly confident/assured...
Big Bob W will now show the world the old man of 70s journalism still has big balls by 'getting tough' with the Obama White House. Pathetic, lazy, and past it.
Opportunism. One, many, multitudes could and would wish Mr Woodward to shut up.
If anything as the public we should write Woodward's publisher and express our anger with the efforts to derail the healing of our country by private interest
I would shell out for a Bernstein book, but not for Woodward...Sadly, he has diminished himself as have others in the press.
Woodward has lost much of his mojo...
I won't buy another book by Woodward. I don't watch him when he appears on television. I don't read his articles in the Post. He's predictable and in it for the notoriety and money. Period.
So there you have it. Might as well not write it. Obama's fans already have their fingers in their ears and are getting ready to hum.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
4 Comments:
(Hey google let me sign in.)
Just goes to show you- nobody in politics cares about specific aspects of government- investigative reporting, filibusters, voter Id rules, judicial activism, deference to states etc..., except to the extent it hurts/helps their team or favored cause.
That being said I 'm not sure all the comments were from Obama folks- plenty of Bushies weren't crazy about Woodward's books on the Bush WH.
I read (actually listened) to an abridged version of one of them- "The War Within" and it was a fairly gossipy tale probably showing the inside debate on Iraq policy pre-Surge from the point of view of whomever was willing to gossip to Woodward the most. Rice comes off as out of touch and ineffective, Petraeus and Gates look good and Bush's quotes to Woodward sort of sound like Will Ferrell doing Bush (mainly to the effect that it was a lot harder to be president than to be a reporter writing about it). Can imagine neither groups of ideologues liked it much as neither was the crew portrayed as proud defenders of democracy or as bumbling nincompoops.
The one thing I remember from it is that the term "surge" was a phrase sort of made up after the fact (or expanded beyond its original meaning referring to a temporary troop increase) to encapsulate a number of things that were going on. The book seems to indicate that success was due to removal of decision-makers who weren't Petraeus and the number of good decisions that resulted from that.
Judging popular opinion based on New Republic article comments is like judging the merits of cellphone providers based on boygeniusreport comments. "VERIZON RULZ!!!"
I wasn't talking about popular opinion, I was talking about Obama fans.
And I'm saying that you're cherrypicking the biggest losers among Obama fans. There's no basis is for generalizing from that sample -- in such fora, you get the dregs.
Post a Comment
<< Home