Woodward Seems Not to Know What 'Threaten Means'

     Woodward continues to double and triple down on this word stance of his. Last night he visited  his new best friend Sean Hannity to explain why he implied that Gene Sperling threatened him as it's clear that Sperling didn't threaten him, not even close.

     He claims that he never said Sperling's email was a threat. His parsing becomes more and more tendentious. He didn't use the word "threat" it's true. Still here's what he did say to Hannity:

     "I think that was Politico’s word," he said. "I said I think that language is unfortunate and I don’t think it’s the way to operate. . . . [Sperling’s] language speaks for itself. I don’t think that’s the way to operate.”

    "He then spoke to Hannity over two segments. He described a phone call he had with Sperling as "a half hour in which he was shouting at me." He added, "People have said, well, this was a threat or I was saying it was a threat. I haven't used that language."

    "However, even as he was denying describing the email as a threat, Woodward made clear that he saw something untoward about Sperling's words. He said they carried weight because Sperling was, as he put it, Obama's "economic czar," and "not just a guy in the White House." He was worried, he continued, about how younger reporters would react to being "roughed up."

    "He also said the word "regret" was "coded" to mean "you better watch out" — a description that sounds very much like a threat."

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-hannity-white-house-threat_n_2785739.html

     So a "threat" and "you better watch out" are wildly different? There has been an attempt by some liberals to give Woodward a little bit of a break here. Greg Sargent suggested yesterday that maybe what he said to Politico was somehow misinterpreted-he didn't mean "threat."

     "Politico says Woodward made it clear that he saw this as a threat. But Woodward himself didn't say this. It’s true that Woodward suggested the White House had given him cause to be frightened by using the words “tremble, tremble.” But even here the meaning is unclear."

     "Woodward could very well mean that he objects to the White House making reporters question their own judgment — making reporters fear getting it wrong — rather than seriously engaging with what the reporter is claiming. That’s not the same as saying the White House threatened him with consequences. Indeed, the softer interpretation makes more sense given that the context here is Woodward describing how a “young reporter” might receive this message."

      "On CNN last night, Woodward made similar claims. “It was said very clearly, `You will regret doing this,’” he said. “It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in.’” This, again, strikes me as inconclusive. It’s not clear to me he’s saying anything other than, “the White House shouldn’t try to make reporters fear getting it wrong, and should instead engage them.”

    "To be clear, this isn’t meant as a defense of Woodward. If my alternate interpretation is right, it is still an overwrought response to Sperling’s email. But Woodward isn’t necessarily alleging that he felt threatened."

     "To be clear, I don’t know exactly what Woodward meant. Perhaps he did mean to imply that he felt the threat of retribution. But this just isn’t conclusively clear. It seems equally plausible that Woodward could have intended the more innocuous interpretation, but made word hash of it."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/28/what-did-bob-woodward-actually-claim-about-the-white-house/

    I think Greg may be trying a little to hard to give him the benefit of the doubt here. As he admits that Woodward's statement was rather hard to read. Politico's interpretation seems pretty reasonable considering-it still sounds like the most natural to me, particularly after his comments on Hannity where he said that he read the word "regret" as "you better watch out."

   Even David Corn on Ed last night suggested that a lot of the fault for this lies with Politico and the Internet for fanning the flames. I don't think this is accurate. Woodward has done everything he can do to fan the flames. He didn't object to Politico's word usage at the time and has been on multiple cable tv outlets to keep this story going. 

   It seems that Sargent and Corn may be trying to give him some leeway out of professional courtesy or whatever as all coming from the journalist guild. Still, I think it's a mistake to give Woodward a pass here. This is really an opportunity to fight back against Krugman's Very Serious People in the media.  Woodward is emblematic of a very tired meme that has degraded public discourse in the media during  Obama''s entire term. 

   The real problem is that the media mostly agrees with the President but also believes very fervently in "bipartisanship" which amounts to criticizing Democrats and Republicans the same amount. The only problem with this is that the two sides are not morally equivalent. If one kid is bullying another and you take them both aside and tell them to both cut it out you're really favoring the bully. 

     "It is obviously possible to agree with the Republican negotiating position over the budget sequester, which is that it would be better to replace the sequester with cuts to social spending, yet better to keep the sequester than increase tax revenue in any form. It is also obviously possible to disagree with President Obama’s position, which is that the sequester ought to be replaced with a “balanced” mix of cuts to retirement programs and increased revenue through tax reform. It is also obviously possible to take a stance directly between the two positions.

      "Respectable centrist position agrees with Obama’s position. But to agree with one party is not a respectable centrist thing to do. And so a wide stream of coverage and commentary on this issue is dedicated to actively misleading Americans about what the two sides are proposing."

     - See more at: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/beltway-brain-fever-sequester-edition.html#sthash.mvqwSG0N.dpuf

      Holding Woodward's feet over the fire on this might be the thing that will make the Very Serious People a little more self conscious about their mendaciousness. It would greatly improve the quality of discussion within the MSM.