Ken Silverstein has done some breathtaking posts about Bob Woodward’s income from speaking to groups that have an interest in the issues Woodward writes about.
Woodward says there is nothing wrong with any of this, because he gave the money to charity.
Silverstein rightfully answers, So what?
It makes one wonder what Ben Bradlee thinks of all this. You’re corrupted if you take money from corporate groups, but not if you give the money to charity? Even if it’s your own personal charity, and you get a tax break, and most of the contributions go to elite causes of direct interest to the donor? This looks to be the same sort of double-dealing and hypocrisy that Bob Woodward–at least the old Bob Woodward–would have been all over as a reporter, if a political figure were involved.
If members of Congress and government officials have to fill out financial disclosure statements about where their income derives from, why not the same thing for journalists? If Woodward doesn’t want to disclose who is paying his speaking his fees, perhaps he should forgo speaking to those groups in the first place.
Update: Ken Silverstein has more. The Chronicle of Philanthropy advances the ball. And from the archives.
RSS Feed
Darn right. If politicians have to disclose because they have so much power over the nation, does that not stand for media folks like this? They have even more power over the nation because they can’t be voted away. They are in our faces for decade after decade after decade, like some putrefied product you can’t scrape off the bottom of the refrigerator. It’s why people are jettisoning their TV.
Look. These guys have special mention in our Constitution. They have special privileges other folks don’t have legally. They have NO SPECIAL OBLIGATION OF ANY KIND AND DON’T EVEN OPERATE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD ANYMORE.
I think it’s time these guys had SOME rules, ya think?
Audit and publish and do it annually.
Fat chance this will happen unless you repeal the 1996 Telecommunications law for starters. And replace the folks who need replacing in D.C. and NYC and Atlanta and on and on and on…..
Is he media folks, now? I liked him better when he and his “pardner” were writing about watergate.
He should have to disclose all that he “earns” and pay the appropriate taxes on the same.
Woodward and his type are the vectors that carry the virus of corrupt government that is killing this country
Excellent post. As Ross Perot used to say, “follow the money.”
…Michael
Why not disclose his speaking fees?
Umm, because he’s a private citizen and not a publicly elected and paid official.
Terry Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Why not disclose his speaking fees?
Umm, because he’s a private citizen and not a publicly elected and paid official.
I would agree if he was just an on air personality giving opinion. But when the are journalists that are writing about public policy matters knowing whether they have a financial interest in said matter should be known as part of full disclosure.
I am sorry, but I do not see the story here. What is wrong with a Journalist taking speaking engagements and getting paid for it? No one is accusing him of performing a grievous act, because of him doing so.
For those who think Woodward’s ethics violation are no big deal, consider what Bob Woodward himself writes in the “Questions and Answers” part of his personal website (bobwoodward.com):
” I agree that it is the responsibility of the media in a democracy to inform the public about what their elected officials are doing and how they are handling their responsibilities, but it is equally important for non-political figures to be held accountable for what they do. Business and community leaders of all kinds can greatly affect the world, and it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that both positive and negative aspects of business and government are made public. It is equally important that the public demands thorough, honest reporting from the media.”
In other words, ethics rules apply to everyone…except if you’re Bob Woodward.
Just because Woodward achieved great things long ago, it doesn’t excuse him from hypocrisy today.
Ya and tell us who he’s invested with too. Cause when you think that he could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars something like Tim Russert I guess was. Maybe he’s not as good a businessman as Russert but he’s been at it a long time, he’s a big star and all. You’ve got to wonder what strange bedfellows we have going down there in Washington. I mean when you’ve got more money than God you’ve got to put it someplace. And how does that affect your product no wonder these guys are so out of it.
A guy with a beef about being passed over for promotion decided to leak all over Woodward, who at the time was a Republican. He made Woodward. And ever since, he’s been granted major cred though 90% of his stuff sounds like GOP talking points with just enough inside stuff tossed in to maintain the aura that sets him a tad above a typical hack Republican reporter.
I could be wrong, but that’s been my opinion for many years. Bernstein gets less space but I’ve always liked his reporting better.
So yeah, I think more transparency is a way that all MSM reporters can demonstrate greater cred, though it’s ultimately a private judgment call.
If many reporters started displaying their financial statements, it would put pressure on all to volunteer the same. I think it’s a great idea.
(And btw, I never knew you were blogging, Murray. I can’t believe I’ve been bypassing your work all this time while looking for your MSM articles at WaPo, etc.)