We have a comment from someone, who may be Bob Woodward, saying that Darman's and Weber's views of Newt Gingrich were not newsworthy in 1992--never mind that he was then the House Minority Whip:
Brad DeLong: Bob Woodward Tells Us Now What He Knew About Newt Gingrich Two Decades Ago: There you go again. For an academic, you repeatedly avoid or overlook facts. You rightly set the standard when you say a journalist should inform "the American people about those who were running their government." Read the entire October 1992 four part series you quote from above. It did just that, describing the attempted management of the economy by then-President Bush and his economic team. Gingrich was No. 2 in the House minority---not someone running the government though he did throw a wrench into it for a month.
And he says that Darman's and Weber's views of Gingrich were not newsworthy in 1993, when Gingrich was leading the Republican charge to see if they could block everything Clinton proposed and make him appear to be a failure in order to gain political advantage. And Darman's and Weber's views of Gingrich were not newsworthy in 1994, when Gingrich's plan to try to block everything Clinton proposed and make him appear to be a failure in order to gain political advantage looked to be working.
And Darman's and Weber's views of Gingrich were not newsworthy in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, she Gingrich was Speaker of the House. Or in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. How about in early 2011, when Gingrich looked to be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination building a staff that could run a nationwide primary campaign? Nope, not newsworthy then.
But now, at the end of 2011, now that Gingrich's stock on InTrade has collapsed from 40% to 8%; now, he writes:
Now that Gingrich is running for president all the detail in the current December 2011 story is relevant. You really ought to be embarrassed. And you think this is about the press corps?