The unbearable arrogance of Bob Woodward (revisited 3)

(For the previous three installments of this series on the Woodward revelation, see here, here, and here.)

The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, tackles the Post's (and its star reporter's) "tough week" -- see here. But this is all she has to recommend:

What now? Woodward ought to have an editor; every reporter needs one. [Executive Editor Len] Downie needs to meet with him frequently or assign him to another top-line editor here. In any case, an editor needs to know what he's working on and whom he's talking to. The Post needs to exercise more oversight. Woodward needs the grounding a good editor gives.

It boils down to this: There ought to be clear rules, easy for readers and Post staffers to understand, about Woodward's job at The Post. He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous.

Or perhaps especially because he's rich and famous... and unbearably arrogant.

BUT THAT'S IT?! WOODWARD JUST NEEDS AN EDITOR?! (Hey, maybe he ought to attend Bush's ethics classes.)

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog: "Now we have Woodward outright lying about the entire fiasco, the Washington Post's executive editor saying that it's "ridiculous" that the readers should expect Woodward to even be "disciplined," and the Post's non-budsman writing some freshman-in-college essay that suggests Woodward get an editor, when he already has one - it's the guy he didn't tell the truth to, his executive editor, who now isn't that concerned anyway about what Woodward did, let alone the lies he's still giving us. And you wonder why Woodward felt no compunction to tell this man the truth?" It's a great post. Make sure to read the whole thing. (And here's a response from Avedon Carol at The Sideshow.)