Journalistic mind-reading is bad

The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby makes a very important point about journalistic psychologizing in a recent column. The subject is this passage from Bob Woodward's new book State of Denial:

Cheney had suggested Rumsfeld to Bush in late December 2000. Rumsfeld was so impressive, Bush told Card at the time. He had had the job in the Ford administration a quarter-century before, and it was as if he were now saying, "I think I've got some things I'd like to finish."

But there was another dynamic that Bush and Card discussed. Rumsfeld and Bush's father, the former president, couldn't stand each other. Bush senior didn't trust Rumsfeld and thought he was arrogant, self-important, too sure of himself and Machiavellian. Rumsfeld had also made nasty private remarks that the elder Bush was a lightweight.

Card could see that overcoming the former president's skepticism about Rumsfeld added to the president-elect's excitement. It was a chance to prove his father wrong.

Quoting a post by the liberal blogger Digby, Somerby points out that liberals are falling into the same kind of mind-reading and pop psychology that they used to hate during the Clinton years:

According to Digby, this part of Woodward's book shows "Junior's adolescent need to reject his father." But does this passage really show that? If we come to that conclusion, we are making two assumptions: 1) Card knew how to read Bush's mind, and 2) Woodward recorded Card's statements correctly. We have little confidence in either proposition. By the way, many Bush insiders are now saying the things the mainstream press wants to hear, hoping to curry favor with the press for their future career interests. If Card said this, was he being sincere? We can't imagine why a critic of this Admin would automatically think so.

In our view, we liberals become like kooky-cons (or worse, like Maureen Dowd) when we accept mind-reading, psychiatrizing work like this just because we find it pleasing -- just because the psychiatrization of the moment happens to cut in our favor. This kind of journalistic "reasoning" has been relentlessly used, in the past fifteen years, to do massive damage to major Dem candidates. In the long run, we'd guess that we would be better off in we rejected all such piffle from intellectual midgets like Woodward and Dowd.

In many ways, Woodward has become a Dowdian clown. We'd guess that libs would be better off if we rejected all such work -- if we skipped the picking-and-choosing about the corps' mind-reading sessions. In this press corps, the doctor is constantly IN. The bad news? This doctor's a quack.

Comments

[Thomas Nephew]

I often agree with Somerby about stuff like this, but I'd say it's fair game to cite a long-time associate's "read" of the "tells" on Bush's face at a time like this. Woodward wasn't reporting mind-reading, he was reporting face-reading. Somerby is right to be cautious, but I'll have to read more of what he says to see how he backs up lack of confidence in Woodward's ability to accurately record and report an interview.

[Bob]

Let me see if I have this straight: In a post designed to caution against mind-reading, we get this bit of, er, mind reading:

By the way, many Bush insiders are now saying the things the mainstream press wants to hear, hoping to curry favor with the press for their future career interests.