|
Thanks Dean. If evidence turns up --real, persuasive evidence-- that the GOP covered up Foley's predatory tactics, I'll beat you to the post demanding the resignation, and not just from leadership, of the responsible Congressman.
Next, I am an agnostic on the IM technology debate, but it is fascinating to see unwind in this post (keep scrolling).
And don't miss the central point of the Edsall on Woodward interview: Bob Woodward would be easily impeached in any court of law because of his repeated and dcoumented, er, exaggerations. When even his colleagues of 25 years --which Edsall was-- undercut your credibility, then all buyers should beware. Examples:
HH: Okay. Do you believe everything Bob Woodward writes?
TE: No.
HH: Do you believe he saw Bill Casey at the hospital bed scene in Vail?
TE: I have real problems with that.
and
TE: I'm not sure that Bob Woodward makes things up. That's...I'm...
HH: Is it possible for people to infer that, based upon both the Final Days and Veil?
TE: Well, you can always infer.
HH: Is it a reasonable inference?
TE: It's a possible inference. I wouldn't say...
HH: But you know...
TE: But certainly, it's not something that a jury would conclude as conclusive evidence.
and
HH: But my question is, is Woodwardism good for journalism, Tom Edsall?
TE: I think that the problems Woodward poses as a journalist are significant. I think, though, that his contributions...
HH: What are those problems.
TE: ...have also been significant. It's a mixed bag.
HH: I agree, but what are the problems?
TE: One is what you sight, credibility. I think a much more serious problem is his dependence on sources, which makes him, to a certain extent, a sucker for those who talk to him, and a hostile adversary to those who do not talk to him.
and
HH: But given everything you've just said, that he shades towards his sources, he punishes those who don't work, he's not credible in Veil, and the Final Days, doesn't that really undermine the idea that this guy should be listened to? It seems like you've got a very wart-filled prima donna who by virtue of his early work at the Post, has inherited a lot of credibility which he simply doesn't deserve?
TE: I think that there are significant problems in Bob's reporting techniques, and the product that he produces, that every reader of his work should be aware of. But I don't think you can dismiss what he writes, and just disregard it, because he does get a lot of information that no one else does.
HH: Okay, last question. Does the press push him in any way like they should push him? Or do they lay down for him, because it's Bob Woodward?
TE: If it's an either/or question, they lay down for him.
|