Mea Culpa. I take back everything I said in defense of Bob Woodward on Wednesday...
Thanks to Charlie Pierce, who wrote this:
snip
Pause for a moment and gaze in awe at what happens when two towering careerists collide.
Let us be clear. Both of these men knew before anyone else that the president* was lying in public about the most serious public health crisis in a century. Both of these men knew before anyone else how serious that threat was, and how deadly the disease could be. Both of these men knew before anyone else that a potential disaster was not only possible, but increasingly likely. BOTH OF THESE MEN KNEW! The president* knew and lied because he wanted to get re-elected. Woodward knew and kept it to himself because he had a book to sell. Who’s worse? Far too measured a choice for this reporter, but, as someone who in his own small way practices the same craft as Bob Woodward, I have to wonder how Woodward watched the president* lie for six months as the body count ratcheted skyward without his conscience tearing out his heart. I have to wonder if, in some small way, journalism as public service died as collateral damage in that struggle.
And, please, for the love of god, don’t buy any crapola out of Woodward that may be coming soon from the high road he’s built to reach the limits of his enormous ego.
snip
The interviews with the president* were conducted on the record. As early as January, Woodward could have broken a huge story quoting the president* himself about how the president* was lying to the public and risking the public health. Maybe it would have forced a change of policy that would have saved lives. (Probably not, given what we know about this president*’s modus operandi.) Woodward knew the truth behind the administration*’s deadly bungling—and worse—and he saved it for his book, which will be released to wild acclaim and huge profits after nearly 200,000 Americans have died because neither Donald Trump nor Bob Woodward wanted to risk anything substantial to keep the country informed.
I really don’t give a flying fck at a rolling doughnut about anything else in Woodward’s book except that simple fact. We all figured out without his help that Camp Runamuck was full of cowards and sycophants willing to put their reputations through the shredder to serve an addled and criminal presidency*. The Bitter Tears of Dan Coats doesn’t interest me as drama in the least. We all figured out early on that Jared Kushner was a jumped-up putz. That, in far closer contact, Jim Mattis figured that out, too, doesn’t impress me overmuch.
For reasons of their own—venal, selfish, inexcusable reasons, all of them—both Donald Trump and Bob Woodward shirked the duties of their respective occupations and, eventually, hundreds of thousands of Americans may be dead in part because they did. The shame of this should be everlasting. Bob Woodward’s nonfeasance in the face of this disaster should stand with Walter Duranty’s covering for Stalin in the matter of the Ukrainian famine as eternal embarrassments to journalism and to simple humanity. Nobody, as the bumper stickers used to say, ever died at Watergate.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a33969935/bob-woodward-trump-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR1FjnnRyAs6ODGw_o3OVanWLBa3_nXUM5Inji7pXS24Bm40T-3DtPavpks
= new reply since forum marked as read
I sure as heck think he did something wrong. You don't think people would've listened if Bob Freaking Woodward got up and said "He's trying to kill us all!". Bob may not be the person responsible for the debacle but he sure as shit had an opportunity to try and do something about it with a voice that is well respected and listened to. We got a difference of opinion here. I think Bob is just as guilty as Trump at being a self-centered egotistical dick. Bob Woodward could have saved ACTUAL lives had he spoken up.
Whether you think status is relevant or not Pierce elevated him to the level of a president in the piece. He’s not. Period. All the emotional arguments about his ego or book deals or human and journalistic ethics don’t matter and don’t change that fact one little bit.
Also, the speculative argument line cuts both ways. We don’t know if it would have made a difference. I think it’s naive and ahistorical to believe it would. You think it would have changed everything. We’ll never know.
And on edit: these arguments are especially dumb given that Trump has been parroting a version of them all day. Do better, folks. 
..... and the timing of its release, this editorial sounds like an attempt to stifle undeniable proof by Trump's own words by arguing that the most important thing the American people need to know is Woodward's underhanded attempt to make a buck.
"I really don’t give a flying fck at a rolling doughnut about anything else in Woodward’s book except that simple fact."
And there you have it.
whereas I'm focused like a laser on Trump elsewhere on social media.
I have to agree with Charlie Pierce. Especially after Woodward's massive asskiss book about Dubya and his war crimes. Woodward IS and always has been a Republican and I don't trust him. Bernstein was and is a liberal Dem.
But at what I thought was the perfect place to discuss a sickening feeling about Woodward with-holding lifesaving info, people who have expressed this are being attacked! "Outrage Junkies," "concern trolls," "whiners" (whining about people dying? Really DU?)
I guess we're all on edge after being cooped up for months, but I am a bit taken aback by these attacks (translate "pissed"
.
