Thread by @ErikWemple

Seeing a lot of arguments that Bob Woodward did something unethical or untoward in "holding" on to his scoop about Trump's admission that he played down the coronavirus. I disagree with the criticism. 1/

Woodward is a book author and the implicit understanding with his sources is that he'll interview them, interview them again and again and again until he can stitch together something authoritative, in book form. 2/

That method explains how he gets officials and presidents to cooperate with him. If he were doing daily dispatches and attending all the White House briefings, he wouldn't be getting 18 on-the-record interviews with President Trump. 3/

So it strikes me that the choice isn't between Woodward publishing this revelation in September and, say, March. It's between Woodward publishing this in September or not at all. 4/

I think it's really healthy for democracy to have reporters who work on daily and weekly deadlines, people like @maggienyt @PhilipRucker @PaulaReidCBS who are on it every day. AND people like Woodward who function at a completely difference pace. 5/

Now: What would have been different if Woodward had presented this news months ago? My bet: Kayleigh McEnany would have come to the lectern months ago to deny that Trump downplayed coronavirus and asserted that it all was an example of superior presidential leadership. 6/

And finally, there's a lot of commentary about how Woodward was just out to sell books. Well, of course Woodward is out to sell books. All book authors are out to sell books. 7/

Again: The idea that a journalist spends months reporting on the WH, puts it all in one place, publishes it in a book, and secures a profit: That's a good thing. Would that the biz model for other journalistic segments--like local news--were thriving in the same manner. 8/