June 16, 2008
Journalist's Speaking Fees Come Under Scrutiny
The journalist Bob Woodward has come under criticism by Harper’s Magazine for agreeing to accept generous public-speaking fees from banking and financial organizations for his private foundation.
Mr. Woodward, who along with Carl Bernstein uncovered the Watergate scandal as a journalist for The Washington Post, had previously been critical of reporters who accept money for public speaking, saying in a 1996 interview, “I don’t think it helps their reputation.”
But Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of the magazine, writes on the magazine’s Web site that Mr. Woodward has performed paid speeches for financial companies such as Countrywide Financial, which has come under scrutiny for its role in the subprime meltdown.
Mr. Woodward said in the 1996 interview that he donates any money he earns from public speaking to charity, most notably the Woodward Walsh Foundation, a private foundation he runs with his wife, Elsa Walsh.
A review of the Woodward Walsh Foundation’s 2007 informational tax form shows contributions to the foundation totaling $300,000. Those contributions helped push the foundation’s total assets to more than $1.5-million.
Mr. Woodward and Ms. Walsh, two of the three trustees who oversee the fund, receive no income from the foundation, the tax form shows. The same is true for the third member of its board, Redmond Walsh of Washington.
Mr. Silverstein, however, questions whether Mr. Woodward is being truly charitable by contributing his speaking fees to the foundation.
The Woodward Walsh Foundation distributed $17,555 in grants in 2007 — roughly 1.5 percent of its assets at the beginning of its 2007 tax year.
Many of its grantees include private schools such as the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington and universities including Princeton University and the University of Virginia, according to its tax form.
The Woodward Walsh Foundation contributed more than $135,000 through grants in 2006. Much of that money, roughly $103,000, went to the Sidwell Friends School.
“You’re corrupted if you take money from corporate groups, but not if you give the money to charity? Even if it’s your own personal charity, and you get a tax break, and most of the contributions go to elite causes of direct interest to the donor?” writes Mr. Silverstein. “This looks to be the same sort of double-dealing and hypocrisy that Bob Woodward – at least the old Bob Woodward – would have been all over as a reporter, if a political figure were involved.”
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Dispatches from the Midwest Floods
Next: Darwinism for Charities: Only the Strong Shall Survive
I never understood why so many people thought Woodward was an oracle.
The Bob Woodward Story, Part I,
or How to Make a Sharp U-Turn – By Phil Linehan
Two young reporters, like all their kind,
yearned to escape their daily grind.
Keen they were, enthusiastic,
and prayed they’d clinch that scoop fantastic.
Little did they dream that fate
would lay before them Watergate,
and all the President’s men’s skullduggery
best described perhaps as thuggery.
Bob typified the dogged sleuth
who’d dig ‘til he unveiled the truth.
Investigation was his strength;
for a story he’d go any length.
He’d probe the White House fabrications,
delve into Nixon’s aberrations,
uncover every lie or prevarication
and expose a rotten administration.
So Bob and fellow newsman Carl
vowed Tricky Dicky to ensnarl.
Lucky for them a mole appeared
with a modus best described as weird.
He’d meet with Bob in a garage under ground
where his whispers did not make a sound.
He earned the nickname of Deep Throat
and he gave our Sherlock cause to gloat.
Bob and Carl gained widespread admiration
for what they did to save the nation.
They exemplified steadfast persistence
as they wore down editor Ben’s resistance.
So President Nixon was thrown out –
a mighty triumph without a doubt.
A task not easy to repeat
on a humble newsman’s normal beat.
New fields of effort they had to find
and leave their news desks far behind.
Carl’s modest ways stayed as of yore
while Bob’s huge ego was now a bore.
To young journalists he was quite the hero,
a role he took to like De Niro.
A real colossus he became,
a legend now of worldwide fame.
Made managing editor at the Post
he seemed to vanish like a ghost.
Now his by-line seldom would appear
and co-workers soon began to sneer.
They asked wherever could he be found
and why he was never seen around.
Eager hacks set out to trace him
and it did not take them long to place him.
He was seen as he left in a rush
from an office occupied by Bush.
The guy who hated presidents’ men
had now become just one of them.
The White House was in disrepair
as leaks oozed out from everywhere.
All around were phone call buggers
when what they needed were good pluggers.
George W. considered him a chum
and how could poor Robert not succumb?
He was handed info cherry-picked
and it dawned not on him he’d been tricked.
He played his cards close to his chest
and his editor did not keep abreast,
He was gathering all that he could muster
for inclusion in his next blockbuster.
He had once reported all the news
but now felt he could pick and choose.
He would decide which well-cooked brownie
to feed to editor Len Downie.
He appeared with awe-struck Larry King
who allowed him his own praise to sing.
His methods, once investigative,
had now become accommodative.
When asked if he felt any blame
for keeping mum on Valerie Plame
he denigrated the prosecutor
though some others called him a straight shooter.
There are many who have grown quite leery
as every word of his they query.
Why some still pay to hear him lecture
is only open to conjecture.
He no longer can be called a model
when all he says is now just twaddle.
But remember this, you who would berate him.
Bob’s still a reporter, though now verbatim.
The Bob Woodward Story, Part II,
or Bob’s State of Denial – By Phil Linehan
Quick, finish dinner! At the TV we must look
to hear Woodward plug his latest book.
It’s easy to learn Bob’s point of view
for he’s on the networks, and on cable too,
As we wait for his findings to be revealed
we hope that nothing will be concealed.
Will he throw any light on that odd love affair
between George Bush and Tony Blair?
When he sits face to face with 60 Minute’s Mike
it’s awesome how they are so alike.
It’s hard to decide whose demeanour is sternest
as they prepare to discuss the book in earnest
No levity here, no how are the folks?
But we are all aware it’s no time for jokes.
Have such austere expressions been seen before?
Indeed they have, on Mount Rushmore.
So we anxiously wait and with bated breath
for Bob’s disclosures, we hope in depth.
What will he tell us? What can we expect to learn?
What inside stories that might cause concern?
He addresses Wallace in ponderous tones
as on and on and on he drones
with that steady and unblinking gaze
and then pauses for Mike his words to praise.
As he gives all his phrases the self-same stress
it‘s not easy their importance for us to guess.
Could anyone ever consider terrific
a delivery best called soporific?
Once he decided his reporting role to abdicate,
Was when Woodward began to pontificate.
Now, should he find things get too hot at home,
he could always hop on a plane to Rome.
Newsweek says he knows how to excavate
but that claim leaves room for much debate.
We recall how he lauded Bush’s “moral determination”
leaving none in doubt of his open admiration.
But wait! What is reaching my disbelieving ears?
The sound of Bob as he again changes gears?
Can he really be saying that his erstwhile cronies
Are nothing more than a bunch of phonies?
He swears that Bush has been known to lie,
and says things in Iraq have gone awry.
So it’s obvious that he’s now jumping ship
and has learned how to do a pancake flip.
We’re mesmerised by his asseverations
and dumbstruck at his aberrations.
Is he telling us that he has seen the light
in the book that he took two years to write?
Alas! What he serves us is reheated hash
when what we expected was a hot news flash.
So what may we get when the Post’s straight shooter
again hits the keys of his laptop computer?
Will he tell us that tomorrow the sun will rise?
That Polaris is seen in Northern skies?
That Cheney’s is not the steadiest hand
when he picks up a gun while he’s still half canned?
Will he discover that Halliburton steals,
charging millions for non-existent meals?
Will he say Condi continues with her to’s and fro’s
the reason for which God only knows?
Will he warn us the CIA makes mistakes?
Or tell us Laura is good at baking cakes?
Will he say the Intelligence Service we cannot trust
or drop another such nugget to leave us nonplussed?
There is one question I feel I have to ask
and hope that I’ll not be taken to task.
While Rummy’s stuff may happen, or perhaps may not,
for how much longer must we endure Bob’s tommy rot?
As I wondered what became of the Bob I once admired,
and, like many, whose footsteps to follow had aspired,
I realized I’d overlooked a significant factor,
That the Bob I was thinking of — is Redford, the actor!
— Phil Linehan Jun 17, 02:17 PM #
Frankly, it’s a private foundation and as long as Bob is following his own charter, he can do what he likes with his money: he’s funding secondary and higher education. If you go after Bob, then go after any other foundation that gives to these two causes. Puh-lease.
— Marybeth Mitts Jun 18, 12:19 PM #
Well, this doesn’t seem like such a big whoop if all of the money is going into his foundation. However, 1.5% of the assets were given away? I may be mixing up my legal whoseywhats, but isn’t he supposed to give 5%? Also, if those grants are only going to already-wealthy, prestigious educational institutions, that doesn’t really sound like charity to me.
— Tracy Kaufman Jun 18, 04:55 PM #
The 5% rule has a couple of hedges – one that it must be 5% averaged over several years, so if you give 10% one year and the corpus stays about the same, you can give nothing the next year. The other one is that you are not held to the 5% during the first five years.
I’m fine with people getting speaking fees, giving to their own foundations, and making donations to the swankier philanthropies. I guess that the criticism is that he can no longer pretend to be the scrappy journalist on the side of Joe Sixpack. But then I always thought that that was just a self-serving pose. The guy is the Ur-celebrity journalist, and probably more of a Washington insider than anyone.
Sweet poem too.
— Bif Jun 19, 02:31 PM #