Your reading ability is utterly atrocious. Indeed, I suspect you didn't even read the article. For shame!

The article made no claim like the one you simply made up out of your head.

The point of the article you didn't bother to read is this: Woodward should have told the world about what he had learned instead of keeping silent so he could write a book. It might have saved lives - it might have saved a lot of lives - but even if it didn't save lives, it was the right thing to do?

The article does not say that "yur society depended on a journalist to protect us from Donald Trump's lies". (Again, you just made this shit up. For shame. )

All it says that this journalist failed in his duty.

Is this clear now? Do you understand now?