No more denying the obvious

Bob Woodward’s new book, State of Denial, probably exhibits the same core weakness as all his previous books, but this time out its weakness may be its strength.

Woodward, the insider’s insider, practices the ultimate form of access journalism. Important people want to talk to him. They’ll spend hours with him, spilling their guts, answering his every question, opening their memories up to his probing to the point that small details that you wouldn’t have expected made it past the filters in a source’s short-term memory, like what color tie someone was wearing when Woodward’s source bumped into him in the hallway outside the Oval Office a year ago, like long-repressed but psychologically key childhood dreams.

“By God!” you can imagine the source exclaiming, “He was wearing a blue tie that day! And it was askew! I knew there was something that told me how worried he was about the President’s indifference to the terrorist threat!”

Woodward thinks like a biographer and tries to write like a novelist and the result is that in his books he tells stories. I like stories. But stories aren’t driven by analysis; they’re driven by themes carried along a narrative arc that is drawn by the actions of the main characters.

And Woodward is a self-effacing storyteller, not quite Joyce’s God-like narrator standing offstage in the wings, paring his nails, he’s watching the performances of his characters as raptly as a stage mother whose little darling is making her debut; but he does keep out of his characters’ way, leaving them to tell their stories themselves.

Consequently, his books are dominated by the best storytellers among his sources, and the narrative arc is drawn by the stories they want to tell.

A knock on Woodward is that his books are too flattering to his sources. But this isn’t because Woodward is a sycophant. It’s because his sources flatter themselves.  People are vain.  We are all inclined to flatter ourselves or at least put ourselves in the best possible light.  Add to this this that it’s pretty easy to guess from the self-flattering details who Woodward’s sources are, and his sources know this going in, they know they have an audience to whom they are not anonymous and certain members of that audience have thin skins and a lot of power, so Woodward’s sources have the temptation and the incentive to flatter other people.

Woodward’s last two books in what's now a series, Bush at War and, not nearly as uncritically, Plan of Attack, told stories George Bush and Dick Cheney wanted told about themselves. Bush and Cheney were two of Woodward’s sources and Woodward’s other sources felt they needed to tell him flattering stories about the President and the Vice-President.

It’s important to note that, according to the New York Times, neither Bush nor Cheney were interviewed for State of Denial, and it appears that Woodward’s sources, many of whom were most likely sources for Bush at War and Plan of Attack, didn’t feel called upon to tell any more flattering stories about Bush and Cheney.

In other words, while State of Denial may be a sign that Bob Woodward has at last gotten fed up and decided to go back to being the hard-hitting journalist he was when he and Carl Bernstein faced down the Nixon White House, it’s more likely a signal that there’s been a sea change in Washington.

The insiders’ insiders’ insiders who are Woodward’s sources are now willing to state, if not on record then in a forum where their identities can be guessed, that George Bush has presided over one of the greatest foreign policy screw-ups in American history.

This means that some very important people are no longer worried about what George Bush and Dick Cheney think of them.

It means that some very important people no longer think that it’s in their best interest to be on Bush and Cheney’s side.

It means that some very important people are so appalled and outraged and scared by the Bush Leaguers’ mistakes, blockheadedness, corruption, and incompetence that they can’t keep quiet about it any longer.

It means that George Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have lost control of the story. They are no longer driving the narrative.

Unfortunately, they are still driving the country.

By way of Maha, see Dan Froomkin and John Dickerson.

The Washington Post has begun publishing excerpts from State of Denial.

Cross-posted at the American Street. 

Comments

[Nance]

Lance, I think you nailed it. The story they're telling is one big "duhhhh," having been told in bits and pieces over the last three years and in big chunks in recent months by Ricks and Suskind, respectively. But the fact that this is Woodward telling it is significant, in that inside-inside-inside-baseball Washington kind of way. And the fact that Woodward, with his access, could have told it 18 months or two years ago -- and chose instead to publish that stupid 9/11 book -- means something, too.

[Gentlewoman]

I just read one of the excerpts in the Post, the one about Kissinger's being an 'advisor' to Bush on Iraq. On Iraq. On freakin' IRAQ, people!!

I am still shaking with rage.

If I ever, in years to come, have the misfortune to see any of these people walking around freely in public, and not in the dock at The Hague, I will spit at them. Yes, spit. They do not even deserve the courtesy of hearing the words so many better writers than I have wasted on them.

[KC45s]

Lance--
First, like your first commentor, I wonder just how much of these thoughts and opinions Woodward knew a year.... or two... or three years ago, told to him in little asides and dinner parties and sundry social occasions but kept back until now.

That leads then into a second point. While aware we cannot truly know the answer to the question, I am curious whether Woodward found religion on Iraq because his own reputation has been so damaged by his association with the war. As much as any media player, Woodward contributed to the "ask no questions" atmosphere in the run-up to the war by portraying its leadership as selfless, dedicated, and all-competent. Such an atmosphere continued to hang over the country until a relatively short time ago. In doing so Woodward signed on to be The Chronicler of the Iraq war.

And now look what's happened with the war. For his trouble, he a portion of the so-called informed readership out there feeling he compromised himself, thinking he willingly tied himself to The War Effort (in good faith or otherwise, or because he wanted to be Thucydides, you decide). An even bigger portion of the informed readership is deciding that he got played (shameful for any reporter) or that he was a stooge. I doubt he would admit that redemption played a part in the drive behind his new book. Or that he could. But I wonder.

[Pablo]

I just can't trust Woodward at all. I see this as last minute spinning to protect the neocon movement and blame it on the man, Bush, and not the cause, invading Iraq. It is getting harder to deny reality so many right wingers are attempting to deflect some of the damage by showing us their "independence". Just watch Fox and see the sober realists tell us how it is, in terms that two years ago would have them screaming that the person who uttered them was a terrorist loving traitor.

I think the real test of Woodward will be seeing how he tries to spin what he says in his book when he goes on the shows and gets grilled. If he is true to form he will end up defending the new right fascist party. We will see.

[Daniel]

Woodward wouldn't get the inside running if he were going to tell all. He is like a prostitute: he sells his writing skills so as he can mix with the rich and powerful and in return he paints them with verbal camouflage that hides the true extent of their blemishes and crimes.

And while he's playing his double-game he's making a nice living from book sales and television. Some might call him a p#*~k-teaser! Cheers.

[Kevin Wolf]

My feeling on hearing about what's in the book was similar to comments above: Why let people know right away that you've seen that the idiots are running things when you can save that revelation for your book?