Bob Woodward's amorality was displayed again on Larry King Live last night. His bloodless performance raised the question: Is there an XYY chromosome for journalists? Here are some hightlights:
On why he felt justified in saying during his last Larry King appearance that "he didn't have a bombshell," despite the later revelation that he knew of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist: ... a source had, when I asked about Joe Wilson, told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.
In other words, a crime lacks significance if, in his opinion, it was performed "casually" or "offhandedly." And note the use of the phrase "WMD analyst," as if it she just had that famous "desk job" the slime machine kept telling us about, and not a covert operative's role. "On your show," says Woodward, "I didn't know what that meant" -- even though by the time he was "on your show" it was widely known that Plame had been covert and that indictments had been handed down.
But it's the implication that any act performed "casually" is acceptable that creeps me out. Paging Mr. Bundy ...
In response to King's comment/question, "But should you -- you later apologized. Should you have told your editor?": Yes ... (but) I was trying to avoid being subpoenaed ... Um, isn't that the same as saying "I didn't want to get caught?" What am I missing here?
Out of context, in order to repeat the discredited falsehood that the original crime was not serious: "... (Fitzgerald) did not indict anybody for the underlying crime, so he seems to at least at this point agree with that point." What Woodward does not say - lying again by omission - is that Fitzgerald explicitly addressed this point in his statement when he indicted Libby, saying that the obstruction of justice prevented him from properly investigating the underlying crime.
Then there was this astonishing exchange:
KING: In retrospect, Bob, could you have said on the show that night, well to you and your viewers I do have some information, I'm working on it, something was said to me but I can't reveal it? That would have covered this whole thing.
WOODWARD: But that's always the case. That's always the case and that would be, you know, well what is it? You would have asked me what are you working on? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Is it a bombshell? Is it a firecracker? Is it a stick of dynamite and so forth?
In other words, deceit by omission was OK...
King did a good job with his buddy Woodward, and there's more good material in the interview. But it is this next response that tells us all we need to know about Bob Woodward. Larry King read at length from the Post ombudsman's piece, which said "Last week we found out that he (Woodward) kept the kind of information from Downie, the editor that it is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss. That kind can get a good reporter in the dog house for a long time." King asked, "Why didn't you tell him?"
Woodward's response: "Because I, you know, I was focused on getting the book done."
Downie, fire this guy.
(UPDATE: John has the video; AMERICAblog liveblogged the broadcast; Jane covers the interview here.)
Posted November 22, 2005 | 12:02 PM (EST)