who serves in public office could be is to be referred to as alt cuts finch. you know, of course, the incredible novel written by harper lee that's just till always great read and whose lessons stay with us today as well. and another favorite of mine, "death of a salesman." interesting to note "death of a salesman" is also making a great revival on broadway, and so many people, you know, it's acclaimed, and the audiences are overflowing. so those are my recommendations for summer reading. ..

>> i am bradley graham, co-owner of politics and prose. i would like to welcome you. as those of you who attend our events no, we try to have an off her come as soon as possible after his or her book is released. most times the authors will have appeared in one or two other places or will have given interviews to news organizations but tonight we actually have a

world exclusive. this is the first time jeff himmelman is speaking publicly about his new biography of former washington post editor ben bradlee. his book "yours in truth" has generated heated controversy. the controversy flared last week when a portion of the book was excerpted in new york magazine and the fallout has much to do with another great washington post legend, bob woodward as it has with ben bradlee. i will leave it to jeff to talk about the substance of the dispute. let me just say the biography is nearly 500 pages long and contains considerably more than the news stories so far have covered. i found the book quite engaging and certainly captures the much celebrated bradlee and all his energy, fire, courage,

profanity, charisma and impact. jeff has remarkable access to his personal papers, to bradley himself, to many who have known him. just came to this project as a friend of the family and friend and collaborator of woodward who was jeff's journalistic mentor. jeff takes up the first thirty pages or so of a book with a lengthy description of how the project evolved. how was initially envisioned as a book to be written with bradlee and became a book by jeff about bradlee. he notes that early on he began to sense the trickiest of writing as he puts it about your mentor's mentor. there's quite a bit of jeff himself in this book which is

aptly subtitled "yours in truth: a personal portrait of ben bradlee". the book becomes as much about jeff's own journey of discovery and encounters with woodward as it is an account of bradlee's life. jeff plans to speak for 20 minutes or so and take questions. if you would like to ask a question please step up to the microphone in the center of the room and afterwards jeff will remain to sign copies of his book. if you haven't already, silence your cellphone and join me in welcoming jeff himmelman. [applause] >> thank you for coming. it is a real honor to be here. i loved the introduction. i had a couple disclaimers but i just had a conversation with the folks at c-span. i was forbidden from using blue white wood. it is very difficult to read from my book or talk about ben

bradlee without using curse words. i hope to give you ben in full color. those of you who have read the review of the book in the post this sunday, those who came to hear about my book, you will be disappointed. this book is about ben and what bradlee was saying about it being a 500 page book about who this person is is true and my goal tonight is to convey some of who ben is and hope that you find him as captivating as i did and enjoy reading about him. as a quick word i started working with ben. an ended up writing a book with his son but before that happened i was working with ben and he gave me access to his archives. it wasn't the whole thing at first. it was a big set of boxes with a bunch of letters. he was sitting in his office but

i was petrified. the way i got to know him was through his letters. i thought i would read a few of the ones i love that first and quote you get a sense of how i came to know him. the first letter is one of my favorites from 1977. a man had written to the publisher of the post and owner of the post and he mentioned at her father and former husband must be turning over in their graves because of the way you are dragging what used to be a wonderful newspaper. in my opinion the persons responsible for the washington post's decline of ben bradlee, i hope you fire those two peckerwoods. this is ben's response. your letter to mrs. gramm reminded of a story by w. c. fields sitting with a drink in his hand. the secretary interrupted him repeatedly to tell him a strange man wanted to see him and refused to say what you want to

see about. fields told his secretary to give the man and equivocal answer. tell him to go fuck himself. it is all like that. you get that flavor of ben but another of my favorite letters i can across very early, appeared on the panel and the editor, publisher watch this panel and he said how ironic it was to watch you display your arrogance as you criticize media credibility study that revealed the public accuse the press of being arrogant and after another paragraph signed a letter cordially and sincerely and said this is ben's response. editors do run the risk of appearing arrogant if they choose to disagree with anybody who calls the american. you sound like one of those publishers to into give his community what they want. no one will call you arrogant that way. no one will call you

newspaperman either. i am so happy. this opens up all kinds of possibilities. this is one my wife loved. this is a letter to an old friend kind of a legend of the journalistic seen from 1982. dear frank. i am late in answering your letter. not i have goddamn much on my mind behind imminent fatherhood or scoring cbs's plans and worrying about some new raspberry plants i just put in and generally feeling up to my ass in midgets. the final story i will tell which has been told the store but some of you don't know. of the famous story told at his retirement rose in the newsroom in 1991 when he left the paper. a style report was a self-described effort -- expert on usage and grammar. ben at secretary of the time scuttled over to him and said i

have a question for you. he said is dick head one word or two? that gives you a sense of the color of who ben was. every time i would walk into his office it would be another thing. i bring him a letter and i would say did you work hard on this letter or did you think about this and he said the number of letters i wrote twice you could put in your year. the man did not mess around. it is obviously about more than letters and the book is about more than letters but they are the heart of the book. it is a primary document that i came across in the course of this research and reporting, really the heart of the story because they tell the story in a way that is almost shockingly true and that is one of the most interesting things. this was a man who privately didn't throw any punches just like he does in public life but

one of the most interesting things about him at i start a proper chronology after the introduction at this moment, a lot of what people describe as his personal charisma. in 1969 there was an editor -- psychiatrist who came to interview ben. over the course of the interview which is 18 pages long that the psychiatrist took this guy falls in love with him so you are reading 18 pages and watch this process unfolds. he concludes it is an 18 page typewritten report. he concludes i left the interview feeling i had greater capacity as a human being just from having known him. than he penciled in by hand and illusion, yes but what in a personality creates that illusion in others? if you want to know the heart of

ben bradlee that is it. he made people feel they had the capability to go out and get it and he inspired the whole newsroom to do that and ultimately that is the first thing in the book in a proper chronology but it is about more than charisma as you can imagine and one of the first historical episodes i include in the book is the pentagon papers and the reason that is so is because -- everybody will tell you watergate is not possible without the pentagon papers. depots figured out who it was or who they wanted to be with the recording and publishing of that story and there was a moment prior to the pentagon papers were been decided to publish -- it was an important table setting moment with the pentagon papers. he wrote to her in 1968 a memo no one else has ever seen and told her he wanted to tell her

why he published this report one day in advance of its publication. it is not earth shattering news that this is why i wanted to do it. it is our duty to publish news when it is news. that means when we learn and have checked and secured the information legally and check for libel and assure ourselves publishing is not against the national or public interest. a newspaper that yields to any of these pressures takes a step deep personal perceptible however small, out of the newspaper business. no one of these would do it but that is not the issue. it is the independence we cherish often in this town to a president or representative and that is unfortunate. a newspaper that yields to any one of these pressures sacrifices its most precious asset illegal the vitality and commitment and respect if only one man says what is the use of getting the news first if we don't print it? we lose something vitally

important. that is a gangster statement of policy. the pentagon papers this is the moment. what is the moment in watergate? it is the pentagon papers. the post got the papers. and so the national editor of the paper knew the guy -- daniel l. berg -- he went and got him and they all arrived at his house at 10:30 in the morning and basically decided -- over the course of the day they hashed out and had lawyers and the hole nine yards. the day ended with a call from ben at house and they are having this argument and there is silence and go ahead. in that moment they would both say later that was the modern washington post story that sets up everything. so he came to the post in 65.

he had been at newsweek since 1953 as a european concern -- correspondent. toni bradlee -- in 1961 he became the bureau chief of newsweek magazine and after phil graham died she heard bradley might be leaving or thinking of leaving and wanted to keep him so she had about the lunch and he said he would give his left one to be the managing editor of the post in newspaper parlance and came to the paper and what he said about when he came to the papers the first thing he wanted to do was removed the agenda from the post's reporting and he wrote a memo to r reporter. i have to read it editorially because it is better than mine. he wrote a memo to a foreign correspondent and played out what he was trying to do. we are not trying to make this paper flattering. they're trying to make it fair. what you interpret as an effort to remove flavor is an effort to

remove the tipped hand, the editorial phrases that make your position clear and cloud the news. if we flatten your vivid writing to, this much the washington post loses. we want flair, audacity and flashing quality. you have got those qualities. they are valued. we are talking about something different. the effort we are making to become a newspaper distinguished by flavor, individuality and illusion while being above all. was ben's mission in 65. when he came executive editor in 1968 most of you who read the washington post and most of you in the style section which was ben's idea. he put a team of people on it and after it became executive editor in 1968 there were memos final-round in january '69 the style section came out. something we as modern readers

are accustomed to. there is a lifestyle section in any paper but that was the first. when i asked him about the style section realized my style section material wasn't powerful enough and one of the last chapters. when i asked about the style section i said that might be my greatest legacy as it really? watergate beleaguered the pentagon papers, from a journalistic perspective may be. that is a powerful statement. he doesn't make that kind of statement. the style section shook up washington. it was the section where sally quinn and all these great writers were set free. that was his decision. an important part of the modern newspaper. lot of people don't know. they just accept it as part of the newspaper. one thing happened the day before the first style section ran which sets up everything to

come later is the replacement executive editor in 1991 was doing a series on savings and loans practices and found some crazy stuff. ben had a meeting in his office with the savings and loans guys and walked over to downie's descant said these guys in my office while ago said they represent a savings and loans in town and set of republish your series they would fully advertising and he said i think my heart stopped. i didn't know what to say. i was worried what ben was going to say next. long pause for effect. he put his hand on my shoulder and said just get it right. and walks away. we did did the series and published a million dollars in advertising which was a lot of money back then. imagine that conversation today. just imagine. there has been talked about the

excerpt in new york magazine which focuses on watergate. for those of you who are aware of that i don't want to spend much time talking about that. i just want to read one lovely quote about ben's view. when the post won the pulitzer, they were very upset that the post had won the pulitzer and not they for their reporting and ben was on the pulitzer board and they thought maybe he maneuvered it so the paper would get it and there was suspicion on both sides so bob and carol went in and gave the pitch for why he should have got that and he screwed us on this one and then's -- ben's virginia is in the last analysis had it not been for the guts of them, you guys would be pumping gasoline. it is a colorful man. the guts of the grahams.

everybody talks about the guts of bradlee and he has used that can be in for one second a you feel it but the guts of kay graham is a different thing and something that tried to explore. can i capture somebody else in this book? one of the things and i thank don graham and lose hilton and all the people around and they gave me a box full of ben's correspondence and it was revolutionary to my understanding of their relationship and one of the most exciting things you could ever read. it was their real time back and forth and that moment with the pentagon papers is an indicative moment and ben have a lot of courage but so did kate. i tried to find a way to sum up their relationship. they go back and forth and people speculate about love between them and i talk about that but nobody really knows and it was their compact and it worked and that was what was

important about it but in 1995 a book party when his memoir came out that you should read will make you see how much i had to leave out but at the end of the party he realized he hadn't given her a book. she made him a wealthy man. everything so he wrote her a note and at the end hero this. kathryn you have been the most important force in my life. you have been a jolliest partner and makes my heart beat every time i see you. nothing can change that. not even my own clumsiness. the party was such a generous gesture. your words were so graceful and welcome the way everything about you comes across to me. that is a wonderful summation of whom they were and do they are. i don't want to talk much longer but one thing want to talk about because nobody has addressed this although i did here today

and hope this doesn't jinx it that kojo numby wants to talk to me and i hope he does. just to give you a little background, in 1980 a woman named janet cooke came to the post. they put her on the poverty and drugs beat. she had heard a rumor through her editor and others that there was a new kind of heroine. her editor sent her to find it and she heard while he was -- she was doing reporting, a tantalizing bit of information from a drug treatment center that there was an 8-year-old addict and she brought this to her editors who said that as a front-page story. and so in that moment janet decides to get it and she went

out and couldn't find the boy who matched the description and ultimately she decided to make it up and so she wrote a piece that is very vivid and full of impressions and detail that some people didn't die right away but it survived the editorial process and was published in september of 1980 on the front page on the left side. the little boy was named jimmy. she claimed behind-the-scenes that he was tyrone and a whole identity that was not true. it ran on the front page and he immediately government said we are looking for this kid. the mayor said i think this is made up and in the entire editorial change stood by the story. there was an enormous amount of scrutiny and they stood by the story. it would likely have never been discovered that she had made it up had she not won the pulitzer prize. there are a host of ironies i could go into that would take

too long to explain but one of them is she won the feature writing pulitzer prize. that category had been created two years earlier by ben bradlee. had been that created it -- one of these strange things about the way that story unfolded. in mid april she won the pulitzer. opposed reprints sir store with a bit of glamour shots of her and the next day ben's phone rings and so does the managing editor and someone from the ap -- saying the same thing which is the bio janet cooke submitted for gillick to package doesn't match what we have on file and he said my heart sank. don graham told me the same thing. they knew right then the jig was up but it took a couple days to

36 hours or so. what happened next is the reason i'm telling you the story. a massive fraud had been perpetrated on the washington post and on the public. what do you do? what do you do? if you are ben bradlee? he was part -- pushing the institution of the post. was only the second at a newspaper -- he couldn't -- gave him free rein saying everybody at the paper will cooperate. there won't be one sordid facts about this falsehood, this hoax that we won't get first and when people asked about that at the time and when i asked about it he said he learned the lesson of watergate. it is not always the crime that gets you. it is what you do after.

what he did by opening up the paper with don graham's participation leaders and remarkably talented man wrote a piece for the sunday paper after they found out and it is one of the most stunning pieces of four day journalism you'll ever come across and i relied on heavily. but that moment when ben said we won't have a the sub but we will get it out ourselves probably saved him and the washington post at least for a time. one of my favorite letters and i will get on to taking your questions in a moment is this kid at yale. i had to get permission to use any letters in the book these people's names. that first letter the fuck yourself, i said i finally reached for the phone, she called me from colorado and said i want to use your dad's letter

in the book and there is some colorful language and she goes that is that. part of it was a fun process but for this process i wanted to use his name because it is so obnoxious sounding and i reached him wherever he lives and he had no memory of having written the letter so he said you can use it that you can't use my name so i said fine. but this guy going to yale -- who holds the media accountable when they make mistakes? our readers. this kid grow the brevity of your reply to an earnest question was amusing to many in your audience. other members of your audience remained uneasy with an answer because it is not believable. the american people will not sins for get the pulitzer hoax at the washington post. they will remember it as an early chapter of what may someday become mediagate. a hope you will remember this lesson and think water before asking someone asks you who keeps the press honest.

very truly yours. this was ben's responds. you have gotten pompous at an early age. your paraphrased question asked how often do we see the media admit to inaccurate recording. you saw the washington post admit inaccurate reporting. you saw washington post did before anyone else. you saw 2 on a front-page. you saw apologize in an editorial. you saw the washington post return a pulitzer prize and asked. there was no other steps i could have taken. i am speechless at your injunction that i should remember this lesson and think of the long curve. before you settle down as a stockbroker or whatever and join the racquet club or whenever try to think for yourself if i may give you a piece of advice. so that is ben.

i want to read two quotes to close because they are important given what has gone on in my life in the last weekend days. they are long and i hope you will humor me but they are import. one is from ben and one is from harry. the first is he gave a speech in april of 1974 before nixon resigned but after the post reported all of that. he is very hesitant to point to deeper truth. you get the story today and take a bite of the apple and get another tomorrow. that has always been his philosophy. but this is an important statement that you never see anything like this. c-span: maintain 74. there are many obstacles on a road between philosophy and practice. rarely such a thing as absolute truth. we can we print quote we think is the truth at the time, we are told is the truth at the time. only the first rough draft of

history. more than any other profession we are subject to second guess. unique among manufactured products the newspapers different every 24 hours and can't be recalled from statement of fact or judgment. to produce in an adversarial environment where the goals of the reported inherently conflict with the goals of the reporter and the reader. it is this daily conflict that gives concrete importance and meaning to the first amendment, freedom of the press. without that freedom there is no conflict and without that conflict there is no truth. and then what some have read into some of my reporting, this says a lot better than i could. the metro editor supervising those reporters, ever been working on watergate story, played by jack warden in the movie for those of you who remember the movie. i talked to him in september

last year. my reporting was going to be -- doesn't challenge the fact of the reporting but is going to be pose questions about the narrative of watergate and this is what he said. he said we can talk about this endlessly but the sun sets. watergate was a piece of gold. it told the truth. it wasn't right in every last detail that was right in more detail than every story i ever dealt with sternly with that kind of tenure. it was brass solid and you could argue about this or that but the truth is great wrongdoing was revealed at great odds and shook up the country. the paradigm was set by our watergate investigation. everybody earned his stripes. everybody. the fact that they weren't perfect human beings, the fact that they didn't make perfect judgments everytime doesn't matter. that is a very powerful statement. and last my favorite letter of all and then i will take some

questions. 1992, there's a section at the end of the book where i do one thing, raw data from the bradlee files and try to tell you story that i hope comes through. this is my favorite of all the letters and advice to live by for all of us. don't second-guess yourself. don't look back. i would have made the same decision you did. it looked like a bright star. wasn't. big deal. fuck them. ben. thank you for coming. [applause] >> any questions? >> i wrote a few books for the l

a -- [inaudible] >> it is online. reviewing max holland's book and reviewing your book. i will check with the editors about it. whether or not i review both books i will be bringing up new york magazine article and pointing out the essential two things involved are not really relevant anymore. parking garage and politics. a copy of the new york times can be clarified whether or not we were told the truth and there is -- three alternatives involved in the paper that was delivered and if one of them is true than he did not tell the truth. but let's deal with something which is not watergate but when you get started you may wish it

was. years and years ago, beat me for dinner in a clapboard shack, they all would have come. we had a situation two years where a granddaughter went to a house not far from here and the lobbyists who were approached were expected to go to this, not going to go -- chevy chase or anything like this. that really says it all in terms of the influence compared to what it was 20 years ago and what it is now. >> do you have a question? >> do you think it is possible if the post assumed more backbone in its approach to persons in power it would regain the influence it had? >> that is a hard question for me to answer. it is such a different time.

to me the more interesting piece of that question is what happened -- a direct parallel in a lot of ways. with someonegate there was no investigation. in ben bradlee's case how did this happen? let's get to the bottom of it. that didn't happen. that is the definition of a culture shift. opposed is trying to figure out how to begin in this world and i don't have the prescription for how they should succeed but their response to that particular thing you mentioned is different from how in my mind ben bradlee would have responded. >> anybody else? >> that was easy. not that particular question. where are the rest of them? i will sign some books. i will be here for a while.

what would you like to know. >> what extent did you see it coming? >> i have been asked that question. to what extent did i see the controversy coming and what do i think of the reaction? did i see this controversy coming? no. as i reported in the book it was clear bob didn't want me to report some of what i reported but i had given him the stuff 14 months ago so i had thought maybe it wouldn't play out the way it has played out. for for from my perspective is a very use situation for me. i am not accustomed to that.

from a personal perspective is strange but i am not going to say i am completely surprised. the size of it was not something i expected. i really can't to be honest with you. i woke up monday morning and there with a story in the post's and imus comparedas a story in and imus compared to nixon which was interesting. i was compared to nixon which was interesting. i stood by my reporting. no one has challenged my reporting. this controversy few want to call it that makes me feel better to be quite frank.

would you mind stepping to the mike if you don't mind? just so they can hear you. >> i was a bit surprised that bradlee sold the style section of the newspaper in the interests -- very important. i was thinking perhaps it is like taking the pulse of people in the city. >> that is exactly how he described it when he said it. >> also it is like a nirvana away from politics. i want to hear your opinion about that. >> absolutely. really good question. one of the things. a lot of reasons the style section came into being. one that is shocking to the

modern reader. washington post you never knew where the tv schedule would be or where the peer review was. it floated through different sections. look at the front page of the paper or different sections of the newspaper to figure out where the review was. one of the key functions was to consolidate all that. they had a section for and about women. it was. for and about women. as ben said it is about generals lives and so -- i don't think anyone would say ben is an enormous crusader for feminism or anything like that but in his rationale one of the things he thought was we always cover women as women and he wanted a section that involved women and talk about women but in a modern way. the third thing -- the proposal for this section the guy who

submitted it, assistant managing editor at the time, he said we want to place the way people live. there was nothing about that in the newspaper. when they put the style section together the first style section cover was a woman -- and fbi suspect wanted for kidnapping who was a woman. this was a revolutionary story about a woman, by a woman and not the general had the and gave her marks and all that. ben was looking for a modern way to express what was happening and for the newspaper to express this stuff so it had personality. as i say, ben's to great uncle was the first editor of vanity fair and in that day they had fitzgerald and all the great writers and they were trying to become a modern hard hitting

thing that expressed modern life and ben was doing the same thing with the style section. >> did you also talked to barry sussm sussman? >> no. requested an interview and spoken two weeks ago. i spoke to him and he said that is not news. i have been saying that for 40 yea years. we had a very frank discussion. i requested before and it didn't come through. i talked to everybody else that i could. yes? hello, bob. >> did they say anything about the publication of manifestoes to catch the unabomber? >> no.

sorry. i don't have anything on that. >> that is one of his proudest moments. >> i don't know anything about it. [inaudible] >> and newspapermen or a boss? that even you found surprising? >> great question. thank you for asking. very well put. don't beat around the bush either. the watergate nuggets gain the most play. what do i think is overlooked or most surprising? one of the things that was really surprising to me ben has the image of the brash fearless commander, let's go get him and

i will not imitate his voice. everyone does it and i resist it. he hated direct confrontation. i won't say that as a general rule but there were moments he didn't want direct confrontation. there is a moment in the book he is trying to move another editor out and he back channels it. he is not crusading the newsroom getting out of here, it was very behind-the-scenes legal pulling the levers. you don't think about that with ben so much. the thing that was most uprising to me although that is different from the public image but what was most surprising to me was how consistent. in a very sad moment for me eight boxes showed up. you can imagine the panic with which i looked through those boxes looking for stuff that i should have put the book -- i was in a war room with these

leather chairs and that was a bunch of check this and checked that. i had thought maybe there would be something in here that will change everything. it was all exactly the same. i became a biographer anyway and as a biographer you wonder how the figure out who john adams really is? you never met the guy. you have documents and all that and i had a great privilege to meet and spend time with ben but it gave me sympathy for biographers. it is great that i met them but other people said everything i could say. ben is ben. other than the release offside, he has really compassionate

side. he hated to fire drunks and wanted to let them down easy and didn't give them a break and do that stuff but little stuff like that make somebody a human being. there were tons of surprises. watergate was surprising. it was all surprising. he was amazing about it. the last thing i would say in answer to that is whenever i brought him something he was always like who cares? what is your next question? which is an amazing attitude for someone writing a book about him. was surprising. i shouldn't have been surprised but i was. [talking over each other] >> he asked if i gave ben a copy. i did. last saturday. a great picture of that moment. my mother-in-law approaches