Bob Woodward has been on Fox News’ Hannity show several times in the last few weeks. And there’d be nothing wrong with that if Woodward had distanced himself from the hate mongering and race baiting that is Sean Hannity’s stock in trade. Instead, Woodward – an icon of American journalism if ever there was one – either ignored or was unfamiliar with the kinds of sleazy tactics that Hannity routinely employs on his show and thereby gave Hannity a stamp of legitimacy he doesn’t come close to deserving. In the end, the taint redounded to Woodward

For his part, Hannity completely forgot how angry he is at the so-called “liberal media” for not making a bigger deal of his latest Obama “race video.” Hannity has called the media’s failure to make a big deal out of this five-year old video, “further proof that the mainstream media has been in the pocket of Barack Obama since the day that he arrived on the national stage.” Yet, there was Woodward, author of a new book about Obama, and Hannity had no questions about “some of the most divisive, class warfare and racially-charged rhetoric ever used by Barack Obama” that Hannity felt was so important to bring to the public’s attention?

Well, it’s not like Hannity made NO attempt to use Woodward to further his own anti-Obama agenda. During his interview on Friday (10/5/12), Hannity focused on Woodward's "interesting" comments about President Obama's poor debate performance: “Bob Woodward thinks that maybe the president received some troubling news that day and it appears that there might be some truth to that theory because, according to the Washington Examiner, there is a major donor scandal story that the Obama campaign is trying to suppress. Now the story reportedly involves overseas campaign contributions.”

In concert with Hannity, Fox News described the video as: Team Obama facing donor scandal? Author Bob Woodward explains. In actuality, Woodward did not explain anything other than to compare how “tuned in” Obama was during his own interviews in which he asked “very tough questions” for an hour and a half with the debate performance.

Rather than smack down Hannity's attempt to use him to give some new, undiscussed scandal street cred, Woodward reiterated his unfounded analysis of Obama's mindset. He said it was like there were “two channels” going through Obama’s mind. One was the debate, in which his answers “just didn’t fit together” and the other was “almost like something else was deeply worrying him.” Woodward added, “Now, I don’t know that.” But, he said, “The point is, why would he be so out of it in clearly one of the most important political moments of his life?”

If Woodward knew anything about Hannity, he would know that Hannity’s main professional goal is not to inform his viewers but to ensure that President Obama is defeated in any way possible – and he’s happy to use racial bigotry to achieve that goal. Had Woodward bothered to do any research into Hannity, he’d have discovered the long list of Hannity’s bigoted buddies, including one who thanks God for slavery.

Instead of highlighting how his own theory was being baselessly used to denigrate Obama, Woodward listened sympathetically as Hannity further tried to make political hay out of it. Hannity said, “If he (Obama) was so bad that there’s something else going on, that can be troubling in and of itself. You know, we need presidents that are strong.”  Hannity went on to credit Bill Clinton’s ability to focus on his job despite the Lewinsky scandal. “Pretty amazing in terms of the skill level,” Hannity said.

Woodward didn’t just agree with Hannity there, he went on to give Karl Rove (who had been on the show earlier) a shout out. “It’s great to hear Karl Rove out there again. I used to go talk to him during the Bush years and he’d roll out the statistics and the arguments and he’d make the case.”

Now, I’ve got nothing against Bob Woodward or anyone else going on Hannity and criticizing President Obama per se. Or, even, praising Karl Rove. But to do so and pretend that you’re part of an honest discussion about current events is journalistic malpractice. The sad thing was not just that Woodward called into question his own integrity and judgment. But he did a disservice to a field he has previously done so much to exalt.