Woodward just got owned

[Fritz]

Bob Woodward recently claimed he was threatened by the White House for some of his claims about the Obama Administration concerning the sequester. Ignoring the validity of his claims on the sequester, Politico just published the emails in which he was "threatened." They're about as threatening as a teddy bear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 81052.html

I've thought Woodward has been irrevalent for some time, so this is just icing on the cake.

[MorGrendel]

Ahh, Huff I went for news, stayed for the nipples and porn. I weep.

[Berserker]

I'm not following what your comment means Jeff...

[Fritz]

He's ragging on the Huffington Post.

[Berserker]

About porn?? I'm very confused now..

[Berserker]

This same story is on Fox news, except they didn't paste the entire email, they paraphrased it to make it sound worse, and also neglected to show the response. Does FOX even have journalists anymore?

Fox''s take:
According to Politico, Woodward said he was "yelled at" by an Obama aide over his weekend column in the Post. Then, he said he received a page-long email from the aide -- apparently Sperling -- that said: "I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. ... You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. ... I think you will regret staking out that claim."

Actual email:
"I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize."

Response from Woodward to email:
"Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... -woodward/

[MorGrendel]

Yes, I was distracted from the article by two headlines running down the side of the page. One about porn, and the other about Anne Hathaway's "nipples".

[Berserker]

Ahhh, got it =)

[MorGrendel]

And that was a dig at Huff, not the poster. Huff is not news. It at best is an aggregate, and its "reporting" is basicly always "guess what this person said about this person on this 'news' channel, and then see what they said about it on this 'news' channel." I forget what it is called offhand, but there is this flaw in people where they believe knowledge is taking an assortment of sources and then extrapolating a "true answer" from the median. Empirical, but faulty.

[Berserker]

So you're saying that it is faulty to read a left wing news group and then read a right wing news group for the same story and decide that the answer lies somewhere in the middle? Are you arguing that necessarily only one side must be correct?

That would mean that either MSNBC is always right, or FOX news is always right! I disagree with your premise.

Btw, theoretically this would not be necessary if you had access to all the facts (a perfect databse where journalists don't lie, don't make opinion pieces and simply relate all and every fact of the story). However, seeing that media tends to only show what they decide that makes their story good, many facts get left out or sometimes changed or portrayed in a light that changes their importance/effect on people. As such, you really can't just have one single source for news. I argue that it is absolutely necessary that you check multiple sources for the same story if you truly want the full story.

[MorGrendel]

Nope, not my premise.

[Fritz]

Nope, not my premise.

I get what you're saying and somewhat agree. However, you could say the same for just about every news organization. The link was the first I saw with the full text. I had a hard time finding the original Politico story.

[MorGrendel]

I find that the Huff writes in such a way as to imply the golden mean fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation). "We'll supply the opinions, you decide the truth."

Its very American-thinking, but extremely dangerous in news, history, and politics. This was the GOP strategy with Mitt. Offend noone, shoot right down the middle, appear to be the sensible-non-extremist.

I would rather read non-opinion news, I think they call that facts. And to be honest I'm even starting to turn on Daily Show. In reality, if this was a timeline of facts, no one would care. (Again, this is not aimed at offending the poster, I'm just venting because I'm finding internet news, just isn't news. It's too bad I irrationally hate the smell of newspapers. They make me think of rabbit cages.)

If CNN did sports reporting, every game would be a tie.
- Cenk Uygur, of The Young Turks