Did Ben Bradlee have lingering doubts about Watergate?

A new biography of Ben Bradlee by Jeff Himmelman quotes Bradlee saying that – decades later – he still had "a little problem with Deep Throat."

AP
Bob Woodward (r., with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post newsroom in the 1970s) called the excerpt of Jeff Himmelman's biography of Ben Bradlee which appeared on New York magazine's website "a total dishonest distortion of our discussions, Jeff’s and mine.”

Bob Woodward and his “All the President’s Men,” which outlined the revelation of the Watergate scandal, had its share of critics, many of whom doubted the existence of Woodward’s secret source “Deep Throat.”

According to a new book, they weren’t alone: even Ben Bradlee, legendary Washington Post executive editor, questioned whether Bob Woodward was completely “straight” in recounting elements of the landmark scandal in his best-selling book “All the President’s Men."

For “Yours in Truth: A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee,” Jeff Himmelman (an associate of both Bradlee and Woodward) was given full access to Bradlee’s files and embarked on a fruitful exploration of the legendary editor’s misgivings.

Himmelman’s account does not call into question the veracity of Woodward’s reporting, but it does suggest “that even a relationship as close as that of Woodward and Bradlee was not immune to moments of doubt,” writes the Washington Post.

New York Magazine website ran an excerpt of the book Sunday that’s been drawing ire from readers, pundits, and even Woodward himself.

“You know I have a little problem with Deep Throat,” Bradlee told journalist Barbara Feinman in an unpublished 1990 interview, according to Himmelman’s account. “Did that potted [plant] incident ever happen?.... And meeting in some garage. One meeting in the garage? Fifty meetings in the garage? I don’t know how many meetings in the garage.... There’s a residual fear in my soul that that isn’t quite straight.”

(In “All the President’s Men” Woodward and co-author Carl Bernstein wrote they would move a potted plant marked by a flag to the rear of Woodward’s balcony to signal to his source, “Deep Throat,” that he needed to meet immediately. He and “Deep Throat” met in a garage, later revealed to be located in Northern Virginia.)

Woodward said of the excerpt, “It is a total dishonest distortion of our discussions, Jeff’s and mine.”

After reading the excerpt, Woodward went further, providing The Post with a transcript of a 2010 interview of Bradlee by Himmelman. In the interview Himmelman asked Bradlee whether he doubted any parts of Woodward’s reporting.

“Well, I mean, if you would ask me, do I think that he embellished, I would say no,” Bradlee replied, according to the transcript. (Himmelman told the Post this exchange is also included in his book.)

And although critics have questioned Woodward’s reporting and the very existence of Deep Throat, decades of investigation after the scandal and its coverage have confirmed Woodward’s reporting, notes the Post, most notably with the 2005 disclosure that “Deep Throat” was W. Mark Felt, the No. 2 official at the FBI at the time.

Bradlee’s take on the book centering on his own doubts about his star reporter?

“I love Bob, and I love Jeff, and I trust them both, and let’s move on,” he said Sunday night in a comment relayed through his wife journalist Sally Quinn.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.