Read on Twitter
I disagree, at least a little. Ethically Woodward was bound to hold this stuff. But morally it’s at least grayer. Woodward’s operation has the ethics worked out. But sometimes ethics and morality don’t align perfectly. 1/ https://twitter.com/smotus/status/1303808252220563458
Psychologists, lawyers, priests, et al have carve outs from confidentiality SOP if there’s good reason to believe it will save one life. But Woodward has no such obligation when there might be thousands of lives on the line? I think that’s problematic. 2/
Now I’m not saying it’s obvious that Woodward’s silence cost lives, but it’s really easy to come up with a hypothetical *very* close to this situation in which his silence = death. “If he talked he’d never be able to interview again!” Is some very weak sauce in that context. 3/
Anyway, I write about it here. https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/woodward-fools-trumptwice 4/4
