I bought Bob Woodward's book Fear but may not have time to read it for a while. Here's an Amazon link if you want to get a copy.
In the meantime, here's an article by Andrew Prokop about Woodward's book and his modus operandi. Ever since The Final Days, which Woodward wrote with his then-partner Carl Bernstein, I've been a bit uncomfy with something. I wrote about it twelve years ago here…
One thing I've always wondered about in books and reporting of the Woodward variety is the "blind source" whose identity seems obvious. There are a lot of them in his work…in The Final Days, especially. For example, it seems obvious that Alexander Haig was a major source for the book. There are many scenes that could never had been reported if Haig had declined to speak with Bernstein and Woodward. Now, if you were to ask Woodstein about it, they'd say, "Sorry…can't divulge sources." But in this case, if Haig didn't talk to them for the book and provide the accounts that were the basis of those pages, the authors are guilty of deliberately conveying a false impression that he had.
I'm sure they would argue, "Well, we didn't say he did." But they sure led people to believe he did.
Then there's the scene in which Nixon and Henry Kissinger get down on their knees and pray together. Much dialogue is quoted, a lot of details are included. You figure it could only have come from someone who was there…but only Nixon and Kissinger were present, and they say in the introduction that Nixon refused to be interviewed for the book. Ergo, while Woodward and Bernstein are pointedly refusing to say that Kissinger was the source, they're also quite consciously leading everyone to believe that he was.
It's how Woodward works. So far, he's had a pretty good track record for accuracy…or at least for not having things be disproven. I'm not entirely comfortable with his tactics but the guy sure gets results.