“Oh, but Woodward's book is "journalism," we are told, not a novel. These are the facts, ma'am. Or sir.
Or are they? Is is just bad fiction?”
Or are they? Is is just bad fiction?”
”How are we to know? Like so much of modern "journalism," the book is apparently packed full of unattributed quotes and observations by people supposedly in the know.”
“But the likes of Secretary of Defense James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly have already come out to deny -- quite emphatically -- they said what Woodward claims they said.”
“Are the two soldiers lying or is Woodward lying? Indeed, does Woodward even know if he himself is lying? Someone said something about what somebody said or did to Woodward, who chose to believe that person or persons. It wouldn't hold up in court -- so again, who knows? “
“So what we have before us, oh book consumer, is another example of the metastasizing "behind the scenes" White House genre (cf. @Omarosa and @MichaelWolffNYC) aimed at portraying Donald Tump as erratic, stupid and -- if we are to believe the quote from Kelly -- crazy.”
“As for Woodward and his Robin, Carl Bernstein (who of late has doubled, or is it tripled, down on a lie), Watergate inflated their self-images beyond recognition. Yes, they helped upend Nixon but in many ways all they did was answer the phone and take dictation from informants”
That's the essence of much of investigative journalism, not to be confused with the proverbial rocket science.
