Commentary Magazine


Carl Bernstein’s Journey From Journalist to Liberal Apologist

I suppose one could do this a dozen times a day, but this particular example stood out to me. It’s a CNN interview with Carl Bernstein, one half of the most famous journalistic duo (Woodward and Bernstein) in American history. The subject is Hillary Clinton, someone Bernstein has written a book about.

Here’s what struck me about this interview. Mr. Bernstein concedes what any reasonable person has to: Mrs. Clinton “has had a difficult relationship with the truth” since the Arkansas years. But here’s what’s known in poker as the “tell”: Bernstein spends the rest of the interview making excuses for Clinton’s prevarications. There are reasons for her dishonesty, you see, and they have to do more with Mrs. Clinton’s critics than with Mrs. Clinton. Let’s see if we can follow the bouncing ball.

Mrs. Clinton has been the object of “attacks” because she’s been “at the heart of the cultural warfare in this country over the last 30 years” — and “the demographics today reflect that she is on the right side of this cultural warfare.” This is a non sequitur. What does this have to do with Mrs. Clinton being dishonest on issue after issue? Answer: Nothing. She dissembled because of her flawed character, not because of the culture wars.

But Bernstein isn’t done yet. He points out that Hillary Clinton is a politician and fudging the truth is endemic among them — though he’s quick to add that she’s become “a specialist at it.” (How euphemistic. She’s a “specialist” at “fudging” the truth rather than, say, a chronic liar.)

And the reason she’s become a specialist at it? Why, it has to do with the “peculiarities of the Clinton’s situation.” It has to do with Bill Clinton’s relationship with other women and the fact that “she’s had to defend him.”

“It’s been very difficult to do with the whole truth and all the truth and nothing but the truth,” according to the man who made his career covering and then fiercely condemning a president had great difficulty tell the whole truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Bernstein sums up his case this way: “She’s been in a very difficult position.” What we need to appreciate about Mrs. Clinton are her “complexities.” She’s “sui generis” — the “most famous woman in the world” and “all over the world this morning, people are having the discussion we’re having around their breakfast tables (!). It’s remarkable, this phenomenon.” So, you see, we have to “look at this election in a little bit different terms, and her in a little bit different terms than anybody else.”

Now think about how the Bernstein case could have applied to oh, say, Richard Nixon. Mr. Nixon had a difficult relationship with the truth — but the reason for that, you have to understand, was that he was a key figure in the culture war fight over Alger Hiss. And what Nixon did in Watergate wasn’t right — but then again, it wasn’t all that unusual. Those kinds of dirty tricks had been going on forever, including during the Johnson and Kennedy administrations. And remember: Nixon didn’t give the approval for the Watergate break-in; he fudged the truth in order to protect underlings who had done something without his approval. Sure it wasn’t right, but at the heart of this case was a two-bit burglary. And in any event, Nixon was a great foreign policy president — and the first from Yorba Linda — so you have to look at what he did in a little different terms, and him in a little bit different terms.

Carl Bernstein is a regrettable case — a journalist who helped expose a scandal and who has now, for ideological reasons, become something of an apologist for scandal. His liberal political biases have blinded his ability to speak with any dispassion on matters, including Mrs. Clinton. His CNN interview was a perfect example of motivated reasoning, and evidence of much of what is wrong with the press these days. Carl Bernstein isn’t really a journalist so much as he’s a liberal advocate. That’s his right, but we shouldn’t pretend he is what he’s not.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

3 Responses to “Carl Bernstein’s Journey From Journalist to Liberal Apologist”

  1. DAVID THOMSON says:

    Our view of Carl Bernstein might be distorted by Dustin Hoffman portraying him in “All the President’s Men.” The actor was about seven years older! Bernstein was barely in his late twenties during The Watergate crisis. He was not considered a mature adult journalist by the editors of The Washington Post. They tacitly allowed him and Woodward to continue with their investigative work—because of their hostility towards Nixon. In other words, Bernstein was essentially an employed liberal activist. Nothing has really changed over the decades.


    Bernstein was interviewed on TV about Hillary and the “Clinton Cash” book and the ethical conflicts Clinton had while at State.

    The interviewer wondered when Bernstein thought the facts surrounding Hillary’s dealings might be investigated by the press.

    Bernstein’s response was that there is a lot of facts and information that has to be researched and investigated and that will take a long time to complete.

    My thought at the time was “In your Dreams” the liberal press is not going to touch this.

    My hope is that a respected investigative journalist will complete this before the general election campaign.

    I hope we don’t see another “false profit” gain the oval office without a proper vetting.

    This is especially important since we have the most delusional liberal candidate in my lifetime.


      I made an error in confusing Carl Bernstein with Bob Woodward. To set the record straight the person I should have been referring to was in fact Bob Woodward.

      In all fairness he appears to be an objective investigative journalist.

      However it remains to be seen if someone in the liberal biased media will in fact investigate the Hillary Clinton connections to the various problems noted in the “Clinton Cash” saga.

      Sorry for the confusion

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.