Woodward trashes the NYT op-ed

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

So Woodward is to be trusted again…:thinking:

1 Like

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???:thinking:

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

OP is playing a bad game of Parcheesi with this one…

Makes sense.but now you are in a pickle…

Do you believe Woodward and thus give credibility to his book…or do you not believe him and thus the op-ed is what it is .

This is where you guys get sloppy with facts and logic.

3 Likes

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

That and the fact that the Times and Post, his paper, have always been staunch competitors.

Meh…minor point

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

Nice work to show the emptiness of your argument. Got a real argument there or is all you have childish talk and “liar liar pants on fire”?

Why are you reporting his words, then? What significance does his opinion hold over yours or mine on the situation?

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

You think I’ll get an answer, or deflection…:thinking:

I bet it’ll be “liberal blah blah” … :slight_smile:

What a quandary for trumpers - what team should they be on - Woodward or anonymous Op Ed.

2 Likes

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

I think I missed it can you repeat it…

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.