Truth #1: Bob is not a liar. ...
Truth #2: Bob has always had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. That’s why people love to talk to him; he almost never puts the pieces together in a way that hurts his sources....
Truth #3: Bob is not to be confused with other reporters.... He knows everything. What’s more, he has no idea what it adds up to. How could he possibly keep anyone, much less his editor, in the loop?...
Truth #4: If you don’t talk to Woodward, you’ll be sorry. I mention this not because it’s precisely true (look at me), but because it’s an operating truth in official Washington....
२९ नोव्हेंबर, २००५
Four truths about Bob Woodward.
Her unique personal situation enables Nora Ephron to discern:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२ टिप्पण्या:
Dave, the link is there so you can read the article, where you'll find your answer.
After effectively emasculating her ex-husband Carl Bernstein in movies and print, it seems entirely fitting for Ephron to take a whack at Bernstein's (journalistic) mistress, Bod Woodward.
Perhaps her wit is too subtle (or too inside the beltway) for some people but I think she cuts him down to size just right!
Is anyone else tired of women who have done pretty well in the large scheme of things and who continue to whine and cry, woe is me? Just what did she mean when in Truth #4, she says "look at me"?
Look at me, the little girl clamoring for attention from mommy and daddy, or look at me, I'm a victim of big bad men?
Either way, she's pathetic.
wild--I agree, I don't get the "whiny woman" connection. But, Ephron does seem to imply that she's suffered somehow. When she's had major motion pictures made and novels published, it sort of begs the question, "what's she got to complain about?"
Woodward refers to himself as a "reporter." He is a great reporter. Reporters are supposed to report, writing information they have gathered in order of descending interest. They are not supposed to be essay writers with a point of view. As a former journalist, I consider most of Nora's piece quite complimentary.
Nora Ephron writes: "Bob has always had trouble seeing the forest for the trees. That’s why people love to talk to him; he almost never puts the pieces together in a way that hurts his sources."
The job of a good newspaper reporter is to gather leaves from trees, not to contemplate the forest.
When I was a young reporter, I chatted with author James A. Michener for a couple of hours. He told me to get out of the newspaper business before my 30th birthday if I wanted to become a novelist. (I chose a different career path.) Michener's point was that objective newspaper reporters eventually lose their ability to draw conclusions about the big picture because they spend so much of their work time as nonjudmental observers.
Not in this case, wildaboutharrie. Woodward wasn't covering the story for the Post, another reporter was. Woodward simply picked up some gossip in his daily work on his book projects. Under his employment arrangement, Woodward focuses most of his time on writing books, not on writing daily news stories. You seldom see Woodward's byline in the Post anymore.
Wildaboutharrie, we probably are in agreement. I view patterns and connections as leaves, not as "the big picture."
Wildaboutharrie, I probably should explain myself a little more. I view connections and patterns as leaves because daily newspaper reporters usually gather and write about them one at a time. They rarely have the luxury of putting the whole jigsaw puzzle together before they have to write about it.
On the subject of how Woodward gets his sources, politicans come and go in Washington, but Woodward stays. The real question for an ambitious poltician is: How can I get to Woodward?
Wildaboutharrie, no person can be completely objective. And objectivity is not necessarily neutrality. But a reporter should begin an assignment without preconceptions and without a political or personal agenda.
You write "refused to answer questions" if the senator was rude; you write "declined to answer questions" if the senator was polite; you write "ignored questions" if the senator was aloof. You don't make word selections because you don't like the senator or his beliefs.
It is not a perfect world. A good reporter just does the best that he or she can do.
Wildaboutharrie, one additional thought about your senator example: If you wrote for a tabloid newspaper, you might do things differently. Tabloids prefer a hard-hitting writing style. A tabloid journalist might use the word "refused" in all situations because the word has the most punch of all of the options.
Wildaboutharrie, in response to your comment: I deleted my blog. I will start a new one soon.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा