Peter Canelos is doing his best to make the story about Woodward, in his zeal to defend Obama.  One can only wonder how pundits like him would have reacted had George Bush been the target of Woodward's reporting.  Something tells me the media would have circled the wagons, and anointed Bob Woodward the honoree of the journalism's highest honors.  The newspapers would all do the same.  And Woodward would get a full 2 hour special on "60 Minutes" to lay out his story.

But since the target is the liberal messiah, he gets nothing from his peers but scorn.  Is anyone surprised?

Personally I always like Woodward the journalist. I'm not so impressed with Woodward the pundit.  I don't care if he knocks Nixom or Obama or the Pope, but that was never his forte.  He was a good investigative reporter that some fear, myself included, has decided being a pundit pays better.  It is not so much that Woodward is making Woodward the story. It's that Woodward is becoming somthing he was not meant to be, a talking head.

Woodward should have rested on his laurels, instead of making it obvious that Bernstein did all the work.

This story reflects a problem with journalists and journalism period…They have become enamored of the “gotcha” quote that they then make the whole story.  I remember when George Romney was taken down because he used a colloquial expression for having been systematically deceived by the military on Vietnam (“I  was brainwashed…”).  It was not as if he’d said “I heard strange voices from under the bed telling me what to do.”  It was a throw away line.  Yet, the press used it as a knife in Romney’s heart and his enemies twisted it even more.

I hope everyone will look at the email exchange from Slate by clicking on it in this story.  It was a civilized exchange.  Sperling simply said that Woodward would regret having gotten a fact wrong…professionally.  Reporters and facts should be well acquainted.  It was not a “threat” by any stretch of the imagination.  Canellos says it made Woodward look “petty.”  In fact, it made him look dishonest. 

Thanks God, Canellos didn't become editor.

So the real story is Bob trying to cash in on his former glory.  Too bad, he is sadly revealing a rather cranky and thin skinned old codger, not the smooth Robert Redford we recall some 40 long years past.  Give it a rest Bob, nobody really cares about your foibles.

The Obama Chicago gang have bigger guns and better artillery to take-on Bob Woodward and anyone else who dares to question the Democrat machine. The press corp with their unending worship continue to claim Obama as the "golden boy." Few will challenge the false image.

Please ... the Globe complaining about objective reporting ... it's too much!

Does Sally Jacobs still work there?   Author of a 'total hatchet job' ( liberal Cambridge Jim Braude's words)  right before the election

...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/23/scott-brown-modeling-years/XC72G6LasScChK7cDbOkOL/story.html

Most "Journalism" these days is leans more toward opinion than the reporting of facts. You know, the 5 W's. If a reporter is miffed or his/her ego gets bruised then the knife comes out; "Give me what I want, or I'll pillory you.." I'm afraid the reportage of my youth is a dying art.

The story, that all the media is ignoring, is the president's role in creating the sequestration.  While the president has denied much of a role, Woodward revealed that it was the brainchild of Jack Lew, and propagated eagerly by the president.  He truly thought he could squeeze the GOP, with the help of his lapdog media, to accept tax increases.  It backfired.  He was proven to have been the driving force behind sequestration, and his own choice for Treasury Secretary was shown to be a political animal, rather than the usual choice for such an esteemed position.  The media will make this about Woodward, but the people know the truth.  Obama was proved to be a liar.