Bob Woodward's Secret
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
While it was fine to read that Bob Woodward has apologized to his editors ["Woodward Apologizes to Post for Silence on Role in Leak Case," front page, Nov. 17], it would be more satisfying if he extended a similar apology to Post readers.
Woodward had inside information about the Bush administration's campaign to discredit an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war. Yet instead of offering that information to readers, Woodward made media appearances in which he dismissed the relevance of this information without revealing the degree to which he was involved. His actions have damaged the credibility of his reporting and The Post.
-- Terje Anderson
Washington
Would someone please tell me where I can find a copy of the journalism ground rules? On Thursday I learned that for Bob Woodward, the ground rules reporting on information from confidential sources apparently are distinct from the rules for his colleagues. Further, I learned that confidential sources can change the parameters of their secrecy agreements with reporters at their own discretion.
Is The Post blind and deaf to the perception of manipulation that such incidents present?
