Woodwards book "Plan of Attack"

[digitalsm]

How the heck am I supposed to take this book seriously when 74 out of the 75 sources are anonymous? The only named source is Bush.

What kind of journalisim is this?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How the heck am I supposed to take this book seriously when 74 out of the 75 sources are anonymous? The only named source is Bush.

What kind of journalisim is this?

The Same Author that Brought You "Bush At War" which Was Praised By the Right as Proof of How "Determined" the President is.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How the heck am I supposed to take this book seriously when 74 out of the 75 sources are anonymous? The only named source is Bush.

What kind of journalisim is this?

The Same Author that Brought You "Bush At War" which Was Praised By the Right as Proof of How "Determined" the President is.

Yes however that book cited numerous sources IIRC. Now Woodward has changed his tune, from what I understand, just like Clarke, and is blasting Bush in his new book, with no cited sources except Bush himself.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How the heck am I supposed to take this book seriously when 74 out of the 75 sources are anonymous? The only named source is Bush.

What kind of journalisim is this?

The Same Author that Brought You "Bush At War" which Was Praised By the Right as Proof of How "Determined" the President is.

Yes however that book cited numerous sources IIRC. Now Woodward has changed his tune, from what I understand, just like Clarke, and is blasting Bush in his new book, with no cited sources except Bush himself.

I haven't read it nor know much about it. Is it critical of Bush, then? I'm guessing these sources didn't want to have their names dragged thru the mud by the Vulcans.

I just started reading Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, having finished Clarke's Against All Enemies. Can't wait to see how this one goes as Paul O'Neill was hand-picked by Bush/Cheney and he knew Rumsfeld very well.

 

[maddogchen]

I wished they allowed anonymous sources back when I wrote papers in college. Woulda made it a lot easier

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: digitalsm
How the heck am I supposed to take this book seriously when 74 out of the 75 sources are anonymous? The only named source is Bush.

What kind of journalisim is this?

The Same Author that Brought You "Bush At War" which Was Praised By the Right as Proof of How "Determined" the President is.

Yes however that book cited numerous sources IIRC. Now Woodward has changed his tune, from what I understand, just like Clarke, and is blasting Bush in his new book, with no cited sources except Bush himself.

I haven't read it nor know much about it. Is it critical of Bush, then? I'm guessing these sources didn't want to have their names dragged thru the mud by the Vulcans.

I just started reading Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, having finished Clarke's Against All Enemies. Can't wait to see how this one goes as Paul O'Neill was hand-picked by Bush/Cheney and he knew Rumsfeld very well.

Its funny, when republicans/conservatives cite ANONYMOUS sources they get lambasted, and the info is deemed not credible. But if something is bashing Bush and its ALL ANONYMOUS, its because people dont want to be "attacked by vulcans".

Im sorry ANYTHING that relys SOLELY on ANONYMOUS sources, is NOT credible.

 

[SuperTool]

Does he call them "Deep Throat #1" through "Deep Throat #74?"

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Does he call them "Deep Throat #1" through "Deep Throat #74?"

You'd need that many throats to swallow what this admin puts forth.

 

[chess9]

Woodward is trading off his reputation. If you trust him, you believe him.

He isn't really a liberal or a conservative. He's essentially an opportunist, which describes many journalists.

I'm sure it will be a series with Book 2 coming out when he's on his deathbed or his sources have all died.

Frankly, he's a lousy writer with a ponderous style. I'd rather read Buckley or any number of other creative analysts of political culture. Bernstein was the creative talent in that duo 30 years ago, IMHO.

I have his first Bush book and thought it was a terrible read.

-Robert