Smackdown: Woodward tells NYT its op-ed doesn't make his cut

The mainstream media make up a world of back-slapping cronyism, with each organ protecting the other in the interests of the preserving the swamp.  So what a surprise to see none other than editorial bigshot Bob Woodward telling the New York Times its infamous op-ed by a purported Trump administration "senior official" wouldn't make print in the Washington Post.

It's tasty stuff, given that Woodward gives the Times a lecture on basic journalism practices at the end of this segment cited by the Washington Post after Woodward was interviewed by CBS:

When asked if he knows the author's identity, Woodward said, "I have no idea who it is.  It's very important, who it is.  It's very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated.  And quite frankly, if there was a person in the White House or the administration who wanted to tell me what's in that op-ed piece, I would say, 'Okay, name me who was there.  What is the specific incident?'  As you know, from having read my book, the dates and times and participants [are documented]."

He said that without that detail on the op-ed author's story, "I wouldn't have used it."

"Too vague?" asked Martin.

"Well, too vague, and does not meet the standards of trying to describe specific incidents.  Specific incidents are the building blocks of journalism, as you well know."

Obviously, it's an attempt to distinguish his anonymously sourced book coming out from the vague accusations in the Times' editorial piece, which pretty much claims the same thing, albeit with more clichés and less specificity.

Woodward might have viewed the whole thing as a competitive challenge to his effort.  After all, it threw publicity for his own book off the front page, and people are now talking about that op-ed, not his book.  So no need to say his motives are pure.

That said, he's right: the Time op-ed is junk journalism, given that it simply repeats the leftist tropes and clichés about "chaos" that have been going around since President Trump was elected, giving absolutely no substance or context to the charges, so that readers can make up their own minds about the value of it.  The Times just wants us to Trust It.

The cattiness is great, though.  We await the Times' reply, which will undoubtedly be soon, defending the anti-Trump drivel and punishing Woodward through lack of publicity for his book.

It's nice to see that against the grand, huge, booming Trump economy, the losers here, with their concerted campaign to unseat Trump, are now starting to realize it, fighting each other and telling one another they are not up to par.

Almost like calling each other "fake news"?

The mainstream media make up a world of back-slapping cronyism, with each organ protecting the other in the interests of the preserving the swamp.  So what a surprise to see none other than editorial bigshot Bob Woodward telling the New York Times its infamous op-ed by a purported Trump administration "senior official" wouldn't make print in the Washington Post.

It's tasty stuff, given that Woodward gives the Times a lecture on basic journalism practices at the end of this segment cited by the Washington Post after Woodward was interviewed by CBS:

When asked if he knows the author's identity, Woodward said, "I have no idea who it is.  It's very important, who it is.  It's very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated.  And quite frankly, if there was a person in the White House or the administration who wanted to tell me what's in that op-ed piece, I would say, 'Okay, name me who was there.  What is the specific incident?'  As you know, from having read my book, the dates and times and participants [are documented]."

He said that without that detail on the op-ed author's story, "I wouldn't have used it."

"Too vague?" asked Martin.

"Well, too vague, and does not meet the standards of trying to describe specific incidents.  Specific incidents are the building blocks of journalism, as you well know."

Obviously, it's an attempt to distinguish his anonymously sourced book coming out from the vague accusations in the Times' editorial piece, which pretty much claims the same thing, albeit with more clichés and less specificity.

Woodward might have viewed the whole thing as a competitive challenge to his effort.  After all, it threw publicity for his own book off the front page, and people are now talking about that op-ed, not his book.  So no need to say his motives are pure.

That said, he's right: the Time op-ed is junk journalism, given that it simply repeats the leftist tropes and clichés about "chaos" that have been going around since President Trump was elected, giving absolutely no substance or context to the charges, so that readers can make up their own minds about the value of it.  The Times just wants us to Trust It.

The cattiness is great, though.  We await the Times' reply, which will undoubtedly be soon, defending the anti-Trump drivel and punishing Woodward through lack of publicity for his book.

It's nice to see that against the grand, huge, booming Trump economy, the losers here, with their concerted campaign to unseat Trump, are now starting to realize it, fighting each other and telling one another they are not up to par.

Almost like calling each other "fake news"?