The denials were as predictable as Woodward’s “note to readers” at the beginning of the book, in which he claims he conducted interviews on “deep background” with sources who were “firsthand participants and witnesses” to the events. From this he produces vivid scenes that include direct quotations from the participants, all rendered in his signature neutral, fly-on-the-wall narrative style. Woodward knows the state of mind of figures as they discuss interest rates or North Korean missile capabilities. One official “watched in admiration” as a colleague handled a confrontation with Trump deftly. The blocking and positioning of people in scenes is described with script-like detail. Ivanka is sitting on a couch, John Kelly standing behind a chair, Gary Cohn halfway through the door of the Oval Office. Chris Christie, during a low point of the 2016 campaign following the Access Hollywood tape, says something “with a note of finality”—whatever that means. Oh, and Christie, we learn, is wearing “sweatpants and a ball cap.” The dialogue flows smoothly. The drama builds perfectly.
Too smoothly, too perfectly? Perhaps. One problem with the Woodward approach is that he blurs the lines between what’s verifiably true and what is reconstructed from the recollections of his sources. Notes from a White House official taken just after a conversation are more reliable than an interview with that same official about the same conversation days or weeks later. The accuracy of a scene in the Oval Office is vastly improved if Woodward has four sources in the room instead of just one—especially if the four sources agree on the nature of the description. But readers are given no guidance on how solidly sourced each detail is.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member