PressEthic

With the release of Bob Woodward's book about the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, I was hesitant to read the Washington Post's coverage of it considering Woodward's affiliation as a Post journalist.

However, since the New York Times got an advanced copy of the book and leaked some of its content in a front page article, it seems like the Post's interests have changed:

The impassioned debate that seems to surround each new book by Bob Woodward burst into public view yesterday, two days ahead of schedule.

The unveiling of "State of Denial," Woodward's latest take on the Bush administration's struggle with the conflict in Iraq, scrambled the usual media alliances. The New York Times ran a front-page exclusive on a book by a journalist for The Washington Post -- which begins running excerpts tomorrow -- and Brian Williams led "NBC Nightly News" with a story based on advance tidbits put out by CBS's "60 Minutes," which airs its Woodward interview tomorrow.

Despite the paper's relationship with Woodward, it gives it both positive and negative reactions. On the one hand, the article says that people are buzzing about the release of the book and that it is unlike Woodward's last 2 publications. On the other hand, the article has commentary from people who say that this type of book has been done before.

My question is where do the Post's interests lie? Since it does not seem like Woodward had much influence over the coverage, my argument would be that their interest lie in the paper itself. After the Post got scooped by other papers on a book written by one of their own, it became personal. This became their main interest, and this is highly emphasized in the article. The fact that they got scooped became more newsworthy than Woodward's book itself. There are little hints of the Post's frustrations in the coverage:

Yesterday's publication by the Times and Daily News -- Times reporter Julie Bosman bought her copy and, in what is usually a sin in New York, paid retail -- caused plenty of head-shaking in The Post newsroom, where numerous staffers wondered how the paper was beaten on a book by its own assistant managing editor. The Post quickly published a news story online yesterday morning.

Then, the article goes on, giving example after example of other instances of the press getting hold of advance copies of books:

The busting of book embargoes is becoming common practice. After all, the Associated Press obtained an advance copy of "Plan of Attack" before The Post ran its excerpts. (Woodward was also scooped by Vanity Fair last year on the identity of Deep Throat, but that stemmed from his decision that one-time FBI official Mark Felt was no longer mentally competent to release him from a 33-year-old pledge of confidentiality.)

The Post was the aggressive party in 2003 when, on the heels of the AP, the paper obtained an advance copy of Hillary Rodham Clinton's autobiography before it was serialized in Time. A year later, Newsweek, the Times and the AP got hold of Bill Clinton's memoir before an exclusive Time interview with the former president.

When Newsweek had the rights to "Dutch," Edmund Morris's 1999 biography of Ronald Reagan, The Post scooped its sister publication by coming up with a copy. In 1995, Newsweek's Meacham obtained a manuscript of Colin Powell's autobiography, prompting Time to slash the fee it paid Random House for the excerpts.

Ultimately, it seems like the Post tried to play it cool. They tried to make this type of scooping look like a "common practice." Everybody does it. I think they either did this to hide their anger and frustration or to make themselves look better in front of their readers. If the Post expresses that it's a big deal, then their readers will think it's a big deal, and people will wonder how they let that scoop slip through their fingers, especially while the author was standing right next to them.