Did 'Wash Post' Ombud Go Too Easy on Woodward?

By: E&P Staff In a Sunday column, Deborah Howell, the recently-appointed ombudsman at The Washington Post, admitted that most of the hundreds of letters she has received about her column on Bob Woodward's actions and inactions in the Plame case accused her of being "way too soft on him and on The Post."

She responded to that criticism by printing some of the charges, then answering some of them or printing comments by Woodward. In most case, she backed Woodward's view.

One reader wrote: "You and your colleagues are not yet grasping the full extent of the damage done. The sad fact is that Bob Woodward, and by extension The Washington Post, has an enormous vested interest in maintaining cozy relationships with the White House. Has that vested interest now compromised his integrity? More foxes guarding the henhouse does nothing for us hens."

Howell quoted Woodward: "Do the readers get information that they didn't have before? I believe that I have added to what was known, and this is valuable."

Some asked why he was afraid of being subpoenaed, since he found out about Plame many months before the leak investigation began. Woodward told Howell he was not concerned until after Plame's name was published and the investigation began.

In a statement about his deposition, Woodward said that he submitted an 18-page list of questions to Vice President Cheney before he interviewed him for "Plan of Attack." Howell reveals, "Many readers were surprised that Woodward would tell a source what he intended to ask and said they thought he was going easy on a source." But again she came to his defense, explaining, "It is not uncommon in journalism, especially in highly complex stories, to let sources know what questions or issues will be asked. That doesn't mean that a reporter won't ask questions not on the list."