Bob Woodward, right, during his Washington Post tenure when he uncovered the Watergate Scandal.

Woodward emphasized that effective and accurate journalism relies on three components: Personal observation, documents, and the testimony of others. All of journalism is based on these three sources for information or data-gathering. Journalism is based on what other people tell you, what you see or hear for yourself, and what you discover in documentation or records. All of these components or ingredients are crucial for accurate reporting. A journalist or reporter must rely on all three. You can never rely on a single component or two, but must always make use of all three if possible. That is the most effective way to ensure accuracy.

He related how when working on a Washington Post story he went on “assumptions” when doing a story about unsanitary restaurants in the Washington, DC area. He relied on testimony, what others said, and on reports. But he did not personally verify the information. His editor told him to go himself and to personally check out the information. Woodward found that the information did not jibe. His sources had been wrong. His story had not been accurate. He emphasized the value of leg work in journalism and the need to verify information for oneself whenever possible. The journalist and reporter cannot go by assumptions but must always check the sources and the information itself.

Ethics in journalism are crucial. He described how during the Watergate cover-up Martha Mitchell, the wife of Attorney General John Mitchell, called him up on the telephone and offered to give him documents that Mitchell had left in his desk. Woodward discussed the ethical and legal issues involved in this instance for a reporter or journalist. What were the issues involved? What should guide the actions of the reporter? In the discussion, I argued that “issues of fundamental fairness” and justice are implicated in this scenario. While legally it can be argued that Mitchell had abandoned his “property” and that his wife could turn over the documents, there was the motive of vindictiveness on the part of a disgruntled wife and the issue of fairness. Moreover, Mitchell was being criminally prosecuted at that time in the Watergate scandal and the information could be used against him. Under US Constitutional and criminal law, Mitchell had a right to see any exculpatory information that could be used against him.

Woodward replied that journalists had to rely on whatever methods they could to obtain information. He asked: Isn’t most information gained by journalists given by someone who is angry? He went and got the Mitchell documents. He did, however, eventually let Mitchell know of the contents of the seized documents based on the issue of fundamental fairness. Woodward decided that fairness required that he allow Mitchell to see any potentially exculpatory material.

He discussed the “romantic” view of American reporters and journalists and how that image had been eroded in the past decades. I posed questions to Woodward about the US media role in the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo.

How did he assess the performance of the US media in reporting on the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s, particularly in US reporting in Bosnia and Kosovo? The US media reported about Nazi concentration camps and death camps, genocide, and a Holocaust scenario that were later proven to be false, lies, and hoaxes. US reporter Daniel Pearl had shown in the Wall Street Journal that there was no genocide in Kosovo. Kosovo had been a brutal separatist or secessionist conflict, but it was never genocide. In Bosnia, the claims of genocide were similarly shown to be false. The US media reporting in Bosnia and Kosovo was the precursors for US media reporting in Iraq, with embedded reporters. How did he assess “advocacy journalism”, so prevalent in Bosnia and Kosovo coverage by the US media?

Bob Woodward responded that he was not aware of the media reports that had disproved the allegations about Bosnia and Kosovo. He was not familiar with the Daniel Pearl article on Kosovo in the Wall Street Journal.

He recounted how US Vice-President Al Gore was convinced to support intervention in Bosnia when he read a story in the Washington Post about a woman who had hung herself in Bosnia.

I followed up with a question about the parallels and similarities of the Weapons of Mass Destruction “lie” that the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War in 2003 and the lies and deceptions used to justify the US military role in Bosnia and Kosovo, such as outrageous and preposterous lies about concentration camps, death camps, genocide, mass rapes, and ethnic cleansing.

Bob Woodward said that he did not see the Weapons of Mass Destruction claim as a “lie” by Bush or the Administration. President Bush had an honest belief that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed. Woodward himself, like Bush, believed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Woodward so wrote at the time. What happened was that both Woodward and Bush were proven wrong about the claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction. But Bush did not go into the war knowing one way or the other. The claim about WMDs was a “screw-up”, an honest mistake. Bush believed Hussein had WMDs. Woodward had honestly believed the same. Woodward concluded that Bush had misjudged the Iraq War and was not honest about the progress of the war to the American people and the media, and even to himself. But Bush had gone to war with the best of intentions, honestly believing Saddam Hussein had WMDs and thus was a credible threat.

He elaborated on Bush’s “state of denial” when he interviewed him for the Bush at War series. Woodward had asked Bush if his father had given him advice on the Iraq invasion and what that advice was. Bush was evasive. Woodward then rephrased the question a dozen different ways. Bush was still evasive. Bush finally admitted that he relied on the advice of a “higher father” and did not heed the warnings or advice of his “lower father”.

Woodward emphasized that it is a matter of semantics. Was the Bosnian conflict “genocide” or was it “a civil war”? It all depends on how one defines the scenario. He compared the Bosnian conflict to the Iraq War. Was Iraq a “civil war” or an insurgency? It depended on how one defined the terms of analysis. The US government and media did not use “civil war” in Iraq, but termed the conflict “sectarian violence” between Sunni and Shia factions. Was Bosnia “a civil war” or was it “genocide”? There were differences in how these conflicts are and were defined. Woodward emphasized that journalists and reporters never cause or create wars but merely report on them.

I posed the following follow-up questions to Bob Woodward.

1) Do you think the US media today "challenges authority" and the government? Or does it parrot and "embed" with the government? Do you see a danger of the government co-opting or controlling the media in the US?

2) Many investigative journalists have shown that the sensational and ludicrous stories about Bosnia and Kosovo were false and were hoaxes. There were no Nazi death or concentration camps. These were US media hoaxes. There was no genocide in Kosovo or Bosnia. Kosovo was a secessionist or separatist war by ethnic Albanians. Do you think the US media was controlled by the US government? After all, the Pentagon did have Psyop Specialists working at CNN at that time to make sure that CNN got it right.

3) Do you think the US media needs to be more critical of the US government? If the US media had done its job, do you think President Bush would have been able to mislead the American people with the Weapons of Mass Destruction deception? The US needed to be skeptical? Did President Bush have a motive to lie? Yes. Was the story credible? No. Then why didn't the US media do its job, by challenging authority?

4) Is the US media following the standard journalistic process? As you noted, you have to question sources for veracity and credibility and accuracy. When US reporters claim there is a Nazi concentration camp in Bosnia, do we need to be more critical and less gullible? Do we need a better system of verification for journalism? We seem to just buy everything in toto, hook, line, and sinker. Saddam Hussein is planning to drop a nuclear bomb on NYC. That is what Condoleezza Rice said. And we bought it. Is the US media not doing what it is supposed to do, to challenge authority and the government?

Bob Woodward Responded as follows: “I'll give you a short general answer.  Yes, as I said, we need to be more aggressive---always---and challenge authority. What you are overlooking is that the government does not speak with one voice.  There are sources available who will provide inside, accurate detail.”

While I agreed that journalists have to be aggressive, the system of checks and balances is not always effective in acting as a check on government, especially in a period of crisis or when there is a perceived threat from a domestic or foreign source. My question addressed the issue of collusion by all branches of the government. What safeguards do we have then? What can we do in that case?

The key issue I raised was: Are journalists doing their jobs based on traditional and standard criteria for the profession? I am not asking abstruse or abstract or theoretical questions. My question is: Should journalists accept everything uncritically and prima facie the government and corporate interests claim or allege? Should journalists be skeptical and critical and make independent judgments and conclusions and not receive government directives or “handouts”? This is an easy question.

When I asked Carl Bernstein during the Bosnian conflict about the US media reporting in the Bosnian conflict, he too accepted the accounts at face value, without analyzing the accuracy, credibility, or veracity of the information. Bernstein too did not look for bias or potential motives for deception or manipulation. Would the US media ever manipulate or distort information?

Bob Woodward’s approach, like that of Bernstein, is to accept prima facie whatever the mainstream media reports. Vice-President Al Gore relied on a story of a suicide in the Washington Post to support war against the Bosnian Serbs. Why not test or evaluate or assess the information for bias, accuracy, credibility and veracity? Why go by the face value only? As a journalist and reporter, one has to be critical of information. One has to check the source, to examine the motives of the source, and determine the potential for bias and deception. But Woodward does not do this himself. He did not apply these standards to the US media reporting on Bosnia or Kosovo.

This is largely to be expected because Bob Woodward, although a legendary investigative reporter and journalist who built his credentials on the Watergate cover-up, is a part of the mainstream media and an insider. He is an insider in the Washington Beltway and in the corridors of power in Washington, DC. His views on reporting and journalism are thus myopic or based on a narrow or limited view from the inside. His is the view of an insider. While valuable, it is limited and imperfect.