E-Mail This Article to a Friend From watchdog to lap dog, continued
	Related Links All The President’s Men This movie Web site offers the vital stats on the 1976 film that helped make national heroes of out Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell Read the columns the Post’s reader representative has written about Bob Woodward’s conduct in Plamegate. Transcript of Woodward’s November 21 interview with Larry King In this chat with his old pal, Larry King threw some unexpectedly tough questions at the veteran journalist.

A 1992 series he co-wrote for the Post about Dan Quayle triggered so many complaints that it was too soft on its subject that Kurtz wrote a story chronicling the backlash. In a Salon piece written after the publication of Woodward’s 1996 book, The Choice — headlined STENOGRAPHER TO THE STARS — Christopher Hitchens described Woodward as "an author whose books are written by his sources." In a Christian Science Monitor review of Woodward’s 2002 tome, Bush at War, war correspondent Philip Smucker attributed Woodward’s unwillingness to draw conclusions as "hedging his bets for the next book. He understands that in Washington, access is still more important than analysis."

Not surprisingly, given Woodward’s often frustrating reluctance to inject meaty analysis into his work, readers saw what they wanted to see: some viewed Plan of Attack as a depiction of Bush as a strong, determined leader while others saw a portrayal of a foolhardy rush to disaster. In a memorable New Yorker critique of the book, Hendrik Hertzberg remarked on the author’s transformation. During Watergate, Woodward and Carl Bernstein "pried loose the secrets of the mighty," Hertzberg wrote diplomatically. Three decades later, "the mighty happily take a number.... The Woodward of 2004 is an insider, as deeply inside as a journalist can be without wholly sacrificing his independence."

When Woodward’s belated "Plamegate" revelation reinforced the notion that he might be more invested in access to sources than in the pursuit of a hot story, even admirers had to wonder about his career priorities.

Alex Jones, director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, calls Woodward "an absolutely honorable man." But Jones also believes that "there’s a quid pro quo. If you give him access, the appearance, to a certain degree, is you get a rather sympathetic portrait. For him, access is everything."

THE END OF AN ERA

At this point, it is hard to gauge the extent of the permanent damage to Woodward. But the intensity and breadth of the criticism aimed at a man whose Midwestern decency and lack of obvious partisanship made him a widely admired figure in an ordinarily polarizing line of work, has crossed some sort of barrier. Post ombudsman Howell reported on Sunday that despite her criticism of Woodward, the verdict from the majority of the hundreds of readers who responded was that "I was way too soft on him." The Norwich Bulletin in Connecticut actually editorialized that Woodward should resign from the paper. And if, at age 62, his credibility and image have taken a significant hit, he would be one of a growing number of star journalists of his era whose status suddenly diminished or who left the stage under less than optimal circumstances. The changing of the mainstream-media guard is well under way. And it’s not pretty.

The most obvious example in the print industry is Judy Miller, another high-profile reporter ensnared in "Plamegate," who recently left the New York Times amid widespread concern that her reporting about WMD in the buildup to the Iraq war was badly flawed and that she operated beyond the control of her editors. Howell Raines, the smart and ambitious Times executive editor widely expected to take the paper to the next level, was suddenly gone in 2003 after his stewardship came under assault during the Jayson Blair scandal.

On the broadcast side, only NBC managed a smooth transition when long-time anchor Tom Brokaw gave way to Brian Williams last year. A year ago, CBS’s Dan Rather hastily announced his plans to depart the anchor chair only weeks ahead of an outside report that was scathingly critical of a 60 Minutes Wednesday story on George Bush’s military-service record that Rather was an integral part of. And only last week, much-admired Nightline host Ted Koppel anchored his last show amid declining ratings and a clear sense that the network wanted to liven things up. (A few years earlier, ABC had offered the Nightline time slot to David Letterman.)

Woodward’s own career problems stemming from the Plame case come amid a crackdown on confidential sources that many reporters’ advocates say casts a pall over the kind of investigative journalism that he made famous. (Does anyone think that in today’s climate, some judge wouldn’t have forced a reporter to reveal the identity of "Deep Throat" or face jail time?)

While Woodward’s handling of his conversation about Plame with a confidential source apparently avoided a legal confrontation with prosecutor Fitzgerald, the same couldn’t be said for Miller, who spent nearly three months in jail for refusing to talk about her chats with "Scooter" Libby. Providence’s WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani was confined to his home late last year by a judge after refusing to reveal the source of a tape he received showing a city official taking a bribe. In addition, five reporters from various news organizations have been held in contempt of court for failing to disclose confidential sources in connection with former nuclear scientist and onetime suspected spy Wen Ho Lee’s suit against several government agencies for leaking private information about him.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says that given the federal government’s post- 9/11 clampdown on access to documents and information, investigative reporters are ever more reliant on "leakers and so-called whistle blowers." Yet, she recently attended a media seminar in which many participants were openly worried about the crackdown on sources. "It’s a concern," she says. "They don’t like to see anyone going to jail. They don’t want to see anyone put in the position of outing their sources."

Veteran New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh, a former Woodward tennis partner and journalistic competitor during the Watergate era, remains one of the nation’s leading investigative journalists. In a brief interview, he addressed the assault on sources in his famously cantankerous style: "This is not good for my profession. I want all of it to go away. Bye, bye."

And if some journalists seem truly upset by their growing sense that Woodward had finally succumbed to power rather than speak truth to it, surveys suggest the public — unfortunately — pretty much views that as standard operating procedure for the media.

In June 2005, the Pew Research Center For The People And The Press found that only 21 percent said that news organizations "are pretty independent," while a whopping 73 percent believed they are "often influenced by powerful people and organizations." Citizens have been surveyed on that question over the course of 20 years, and those are the most unflattering numbers yet.

Such sentiments lend weight to Danny Schechter’s observation that as "mainstream media is losing its credibility ... there’s a whole new media movement bubbling up of citizen journalists and the blogs."

As if to drive that point home, liberal Talking Points Memo blogger Joshua Micah Marshall recently advertised for two "enterprising and energetic journalists" to work on a new blog "focused on wall-to-wall coverage of corruption, self-dealing and betrayals of the public trust in today’s Washington."

Once upon a time, that was a job for Bob Woodward.

Mark Jurkowitz can be reached at mjurkowitz[a]phx.com.