Why would it make sense to talk to reporter Bob Woodward?
© 2018 Peter Free
13 September 2018
Unethical people puzzle me, occasionally
Like those anonymously prattling insider dirt to America's crowned blabbermouth authors.
For instance, people yakking to reporter Bob Woodward. Whose gossipy book Fear: Trump in the White House is scorching its fast way out bookshop doors.
You know the routine
I speak to you. You publish. Then I deny everything you said that I said.
Even under circumstances in which it is obvious that I am the person who had Diarrhea Mouth.
Where does this process get the nameless blabbers?
The Woodward Method makes the anonymous insider look like an untrustworthy worm. (Which admittedly, probably sums up the mentalities of most of the lowlifes inside the Trump Administration.)
But is there something — for those types of people — to gain from attaining the status of Chatterbox Wormhood?
I am puzzled. I don't see a "for sure" payoff.
On the one hand, the talker certainly weakens his boss's White House position. And that may be the snitch's goal.
But on the other hand, the spineless talker looks like either:
(a) a virulently cowardly fool — for having spoken to Woodward at all
or
(b) a serial liar.
Neither status seems like an advance in personal or professional position to me.
I certainly would not hire one of these deceit-filled people afterward. Who wants to embrace a masked bandit (with a still dripping knife) into their squad?
The moral? — the Denial Liars seem to be in a weak position
Bob Woodward says he has recordings to prove the identities and authenticities of almost everything he said in Fear.
What do the anonymous chatterers have in return? Scumbag logic?
I know that DC has its own rules. As well as no memory. Perhaps my answer lies in geography. In the putrid ethos of America's cesspool of murder, power, and standards-lacking ambition.
Give me a Nebraska pig farm and its honest slops, any day.