By Emily Sullivan
Associate Editor
When I think of a threat, I think of something along the lines of the classic sloppily pasted-together note saying something like “bring me $3 million before sunset or you die.” Or maybe a gun pointed at a group of people while the gunman tells no one to be a hero.
Bob Woodward, however, seems to take the definition of “threat” differently than I do.
Woodward, known for busting open the Watergate scandal, wrote an article questioning the Obama administration’s account of negotiations over automatic budget cuts, according to a Feb. 28 Huffington Post article.
On Feb. 17, Woodward told CNN the White House sent him a threatening email in response, telling him he would regret what he said.
“They’re not happy at all,” Woodward said. “It was said very clearly: ‘You will regret doing this.’”
He went on to say it made him feel “uncomfortable” that the White House was telling reporters they would regret writing or reporting something they truly believe in. He thinks they should respect the difference of opinion.
In the video, however, Woodward failed to report what the email actually said.
Economic advisor Gene Sterling’s email to Woodward after he wrote the article was anything but threatening.
Sterling starts off the email by apologizing for yelling at Woodward earlier that day, according to the Huffington Post article.
“I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that the POTUS asking for revenues is moving the goal post,” Sterling wrote. “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim…my apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you.”
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard a threat start off with an apology before.
People exaggerate all the time; it’s human nature to want to increase the drama of a situation. But Woodward made it sound as though Sterling had sent him an email saying “You will regret this!” (Insert evil laughter here).
Sterling’s email was actually extremely polite. It was a friend warning a friend that he may have made a bad decision. The point here isn’t whether or not what Woodward said in his article was right or wrong. As a reporter, it is Woodward’s job to report the facts. But he misread Sterling’s email.
Woodward claimed in a later interview that while he never said the email was a threat, the tone of a threat was implied, according to a different Feb. 28 Huffington Post article.
When it comes to the government and politics, no one is ever going to fully agree with everyone else, and it’s foolish to believe that will ever happen. Woodward had every right to voice his opinion about how Obama handled the budget cuts – as long as his facts are correct – and the people of the White House have every right to disagree with him.
But just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean we have to make them out to be a bad person. Sterling apologized for the phone argument that had occurred between the two earlier, and his email was nothing less than polite and cordial.
Woodward should have taken the email for what it was: a friendly warning that what he wrote might backfire on him when all is said and done.
Maybe I just tend to think the best of people, but that doesn’t sound threatening to me. Maybe Sterling was upset, but I don’t think Woodward should expect any severed horse heads in his bed anytime soon.
