Bob Woodward has published a book roughly every two years since the Watergate scandal, 24 in all. Taken together, they comprise a running narrative(连续叙事) of almost every administration from Richard Nixon’s to Donald Trump’s. The genre of the Washington book—a sequence of scenes inside rooms where important things happen, based on a convention called “deep background(深层背景),” with riches of information traced to no sources—is so familiar that it’s easy to forget that Woodward practically invented it. Decade after decade, he has kept turning up in the Oval Office, at Georgetown parties, on the doorsteps of government officials—always on the job, the hunt. His approach from across a crowded room or the sudden appearance of his name on a cellphone screen has surely sunk the heart(让人心沉) of countless sources. And yet, though they know better(明知不该), they always talk, as if transfixed(被定住) by a predatory stare—like the frog that agrees to carry the scorpion on its back across the lake. “Why?” the frog cries as it drowns from the inevitable sting, to which the scorpion replies: “It’s my nature.”
自水门事件以来，鲍勃·伍德沃德大约每两年出一本书，总共24本。把这些书放在一起，便构成了一部几乎涵盖从理查德·尼克松到唐纳德·特朗普每一届政府的连续叙事。华盛顿图书这一体裁——在发生要事的密室里一幕接一幕的场景，基于一种名为“深层背景”的惯例，大量信息无从追溯来源——如此为人熟知，以至于人们很容易忘记，这个体裁几乎是伍德沃德发明的。十年又十年，他不断出现在椭圆形办公室、乔治敦的派对上、政府官员的家门口——永远在工作，在追猎。他从拥挤房间的另一头走过来，或者他的名字突然出现在手机屏幕上，肯定让无数消息源心头一沉。然而，尽管他们明知不该，却总是开口说话，仿佛被那掠食者的凝视定住了——就像那只同意背蝎子过湖的青蛙。“为什么？”青蛙在必然的一蜇中溺水时叫道，蝎子答道：“这是我的本性。”
Throughout most of Woodward’s career, several criticisms of his journalism have recurred: It provides little or no analysis; he’s a pawn(棋子) of his sources, telling the story they want told; and he’s dangerous to talk to, because he privileges(优先重视) scoops above all else. These might seem to contradict one another, but in fact few people can survive stenography(速记). Long quoted scenes stripped of(被剥离) context and meaning are almost always the cause of the damaging controversies in Woodward’s books. Once, during a panel on Iraq War reporting, the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh—perhaps the only comparable figure in American journalism, Mr. Outside to Woodward’s Mr. Inside—was asked what he thought of Woodward’s latest book about George W. Bush.(有一次，在关于伊拉克战争报道的座谈会上，调查记者西摩·赫什被问及对伍德沃德新书的看法。) The questioner was clearly baiting(引诱) Hersh to denounce Woodward for shilling for(为……当托) the president. Instead, Hersh replied that he valued Woodward’s books because they reliably told him what was going on in the inner sanctum(内殿) from which he and the rest of us were shut out.
在伍德沃德职业生涯的大部分时间里，对他新闻工作的几种批评反复出现：他的报道几乎不提供分析；他是消息源的棋子，讲的是消息源想讲的故事；与他交谈很危险，因为他把独家新闻置于一切之上。这些批评看似相互矛盾，但事实上，很少有人经得起速记式报道的考验。被剥离了语境和意义的长篇引用场景，几乎总是伍德沃德书中那些破坏性争议的根源。有一次，在一个关于伊拉克战争报道的座谈会上，调查记者西摩·赫什——也许是美国新闻界唯一可与之比肩的人物，是伍德沃德这位“内线先生”对面的“外线先生”——被问及对伍德沃德那本关于乔治·W·布什的新书有何看法。提问者显然是在引诱赫什谴责伍德沃德替总统当托。赫什却回答说，他重视伍德沃德的书，因为它们可靠地告诉他，那个把他和我们其余人拒之门外的内殿里正在发生什么。
Like clockwork(像钟表一样准时) over the course of half a century, a Woodward book has appeared and Washington has descended into(陷入) a temporary frenzy(狂热), which sometimes even resulted in political change, not least(尤其是) the end of a presidency. If his many best sellers endure beyond their historical moment, their relevance will be as an epic court chronicle(编年史), a contemporaneous(同时代的) record of an age of almost unbridled(不受约束的) presidential power. But as his work nears an end, his kind of journalism is seeing its influence disappear. The taboos(禁忌) that once shamed his subjects have fallen.
半个世纪以来，伍德沃德的书就像钟表一样准时出现，华盛顿随之陷入一阵短暂的狂热，有时甚至导致政治变革，尤其是终结了一届总统任期。如果他那些畅销书能超越其历史时刻而留存，它们的意义将是一部史诗般的宫廷编年史，一份对总统权力几乎不受约束的时代的同期记录。但随着他的工作接近尾声，他这种新闻业的影响力正在消失。曾经让他的报道对象感到羞耻的禁忌已经崩塌。