Woodward losing his marbles?

[AdamSmith]

Further to the 'Idiotocracy' and related recent threads...

Press corps to Woodward: Really?

By DYLAN BYERS | 2/28/13 4:12 PM EST

Bob Woodward has suggested that the White House threatened him. Many of his colleagues in the press corps aren't buying it.

By the standards of this White House, a statement like the one senior White House official Gene Sperling wrote to Woodward last week -- "I think you will regret staking out that claim" -- is
both mild and familiar, reporters who have dealt with the Obama
administration say.

"It's not a big deal. You've been yelled at by people in the White
House, I've been yelled at by people in the White House -- I'm sure this
has happened to a thousand people in Washington," Atlantic columnist
Jeffrey Goldberg, who deals with the White House frequently, told
POLITICO. "The whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

"I get emails like this almost every hour, whether it's from the
White House or Capitol Hill," said Chuck Todd, the NBC News political
director and senior White House correspondent. "For better or worse,
flacks get paid to push back."

Since POLITICO published the full email exchange
between Woodward and Sperling, journalists from across the political
spectrum have voiced skepticism over Woodward's decision to paint
himself as the victim of White House pressure.

(Also on POLITICO: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed)

"If this is it, I think many reporters — and I covered the White
House for four years — received emails like this," Fox News host Bret
Baier said on Andrea Tantaro's radio show today. "It was a cordial
exchange for the most part, and Sperling is actually apologizing for a
heated telephone conversation they had earlier in the day."

“I’m not saying the White House doesn’t pressure reporters all the
time and put the heat on reporters covering the White House. I’ve heard
many, many stories that they do," Baier continued. "But this particular
incident and this particular email, I’m not sure that characterizing it
as a threat -- I think Bob Woodward has a little bit of explaining to do
about that characterization.”

Harold Maass, the online executive editor of The Week, likewise noted on Twitter
that "the email that scared [Woodward] was sort of cordial." Outside
the Beltway, Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget even wrote a post
titled, "Oh, Please, The White House Didn't 'Threaten' Bob Woodward."

White House press secretary Jay Carney also weighed in on the
exchange today, and said Sperling was being "incredibly respectful."

"You cannot read those emails and come away with the impression that
Gene was threatening anybody," Carney said at Thursday's press briefing.

(WATCH: White House: Bob Woodward was not threatened)

The exchange between Sperling and Woodward started with a heated
phone exchange after Woodward told Speling he was going to challenge
President Obama’s account of how sequestration came about. But in his
subsequent email to Woodward, Sperling begins and ends by apologizing
for raising his voice.

In the middle, he writes: "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."

"I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but
again think this latter issue is different," Sperling goes on to write.
"Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere
advice. Your call obviously."

In his interview with POLITICO, Woodward said Obama would probably caution his staff against telling any reporter "you’re going to regret challenging us.’"

But Goldberg called it "a traditional wave-off."

"When people say that sort of thing to me, I don't take it as a
veiled threat. I don't take it as a pesron saying there will be
consequences if you write that," he said. "I take it to mean, 'You
shouldn't go down that road, because you'll be embarrassed when you find
it it's wrong.' That, or they're trying to wave you off the story."

(WATCH: Behind the Curtain: Woodward at war)

Todd took issue with Woodward's decision to make himself a central part of the story.

"I hope the lesson young journalists take away from this is: This is
not about you," he told POLITICO. "The story you are covering is not
about yourself, and the minute you make it about yourself, the minute
personal feelings get involved, that's when mistakes are made, and
that's when there can be an appearance of bias."

National Journal editorial director Ron Fournier, who wrote today
that he has received several White House e-mails and telephone calls
"filled with vulgarity [and] abusive language," said the exchange was
evidence of an ongoing decline in civility between politicians and the
press, but likewise called it a "snowflake" in the larger story.

"This is part of a bigger systematic problem: Go up to the Hill and
see how long you go before a press secretary tells you to 'F-off.' I bet
you don't make it to lunch. And if you're a press secretary, you may
not make it to brunch before a reporter tells you to 'F-off,'" he told
POLITICO. "I only see the Sperling and Woodward exchange as interesting
and relevant in the bigger story, which is that we need to start
treating each other with more respect."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/02/consensus-white-house-didnt-threaten-woodward-158172.html?hp=f2

[AdamSmith]

P.S. So now he tries to walk it back.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/02/woodgate-cont-158193.html?ml=po_r