The Trouble with Bob Woodward

Of all the anti–Bob Woodward invective to erupt over the last few weeks, the most illuminating item I've seen is an essay by Tanner Colby in Slate this morning. When Colby wrote Belushi: A Biography with the widow of the late actor John Belushi, he found himself in the unusual position of basically re-reporting an entire Woodward book—Wired, the Post scribe's much-maligned Belushi bio. Since my own disillusionment with Woodward began when virtually all the sources interviewed for Wired claimed that they were misrepresented, I found it interesting to hear Colby's account of how the author systematically skewed anecdotes:

John Belushi in a sketch inspired by a Bob Woodward book.Like a funhouse mirror, Woodward's prose distorts what it purports to reflect. Moments of tearful drama are rendered as tersely as an accounting of Belushi's car-service receipts. Friendly jokes are stripped of their humor and turned into boorish annoyances. And when Woodward fails to convey the subtleties of those little moments, he misses the bigger picture....

Woodward also makes peculiar decisions about what facts he uses as evidence. His detractors like to say that he's little more than a stenographer—and they're right. In Wired, he takes what he is told and simply puts it down in chronological order with no sense of proportionality, nuance, or understanding....Just to compare and contrast: At one point, Woodward stops the narrative cold to document a single 24-hour coke binge for the better part of eight pages. Nothing much happens in these eight pages except for Belushi going around L.A. doing a bunch of coke; it's not a key moment in Belushi's life, but it takes on an outsized weight in Wired's narrative simply because Woodward happened to find the limo driver who drove Belushi around and witnessed the whole thing, providing him with a lot of juicy if not particularly important information. Meanwhile, the funeral of Belushi's grandmother—which was the pivotal moment when he hit bottom, resolved to get clean, and kicked off his year of hard-fought sobriety—that event is glossed over in a mere 42 words, and a quarter of those words are dedicated to the cost of the plane tickets to fly to the funeral ($4,066, per Woodward, as if it matters to the story).

Whenever people ask me about John Belushi and the subject of Wired comes up, I say it's like someone wrote a biography of Michael Jordan in which all the stats and scores are correct, but you come away with the impression that Michael Jordan wasn't very good at playing basketball.

I don't have much invested in the Woodward/Obama tiff, one of those intra-Washington battles that occupies the Beltway pundits' attention for a few days or weeks without ultimately meaning much. (You want to talk about the White House being thin-skinned about press criticism, focus on the examples that actually happened.) The general value of Woodward's work is a more significant topic, and Colby makes points worth remembering each time the Post reporter publishes one of his half-of-D.C.-dishes-about-the-other-half tomes.

Elsewhere in Reason: Read Matt Welch's classic column comparing Woodward to Judith Miller. And see Athan Theoharis on Deep Throat.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

  • Paul.| |

    So... Nixon did get a raw deal?

  • | |

    Smart I like. Smart ass, I don't!

  • Professional Target| |

    Having had the privilege of speaking with Watergate personalities, one on each side, I come to the conclusion that had Nixon trusted what his friends told him he would have come out a lot better for several reasons.

    So, yes, but he gave himself the raw deal.

  • Cyto| |

    From this criticism it sounds like you can trust Woodward on Obama's behavior. The critique is that the substance is correct, but the nuance and flavor of the events is lost.

    So the White House likely did tell him he would regret his actions. And any nuance of a Brando-esque delivery are lost in his reporting of the conversation.

  • Michael S. Langston| |

    He seems to be just saying what we all know - regardless of how hard a writer attempts to write "just the facts" - their natural biases will show through in a variety of ways - including the selection of details to present and how thoroughly to present each detail.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

OUR CURRENT ISSUE:

  • Sex in the Arab world
  • Obama's last gasp at a legacy
  • How arbitrary description of mental illness messes up public policy
  • And much more

SUBSCRIBE

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement