After Holiday Break, Attention Turns Back Toward Woodward

In case you missed out on some of the news in the course of the busiest traveling days of the year, here’s a little update on the Bob Woodward watch. According to Washington Post columnist David Broder, there remains a great deal of “consternation” within the paper over Woodward’s involvement in the Valerie Plame investigation – and his explanations for his silence. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Broder said:

“I think none of us can really understand Bob's silence for two years about his own role in the case. He's explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blindsided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.”

Today, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz looks at the upside and downside of Woodward’s methods:

“In the days since the Washington Post assistant managing editor apologized to his paper for failing to reveal his role in the CIA leak controversy, Woodward, 62, has found himself under fire not just over this incident but for his very approach to journalism. His unusual relationship with The Post, and whether he hoards newsworthy material for his books, have also come under fresh scrutiny.”

And in her Sunday column, Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell weighs in on some reader concerns about Woodward, concluding:

“When the Plame case ends, I for one will be looking forward to knowing the whole story. I hope The Post and Woodward will pull no punches in telling us what went on in the rarefied levels of government and journalism.”

Somehow, you get the feeling this discussion isn’t going away anytime soon.