Right, but there's expertise and then there's inside information. And I think we have to make a distinction.
Now, I think the likelihood of it failing on something like WMD again is very slight because everybody is aware of how we in the press blew it.
Keep public editors around, give readers more access to the editors of the paper, constantly challenge itself, and be aware of its own history.
It's a very complicated issue about when is a fact not a fact in the context of opinions.
I'm saying that the WMD reporting was not consciously evil. It was bad journalism, even very bad journalism.
I was probably being a little cocky, which I do when I feel that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I think on civilian casualties they could do more. It's actually something I've discussed with the editors involved. They're aware of it, and I'm hopeful that there will be more reporting on that.
I know there are reporters who ridicule pundits.
That first week, I also went to Washington. That was really tough. I sympathize with those Washington figures who have to face 40 Times Washington bureau reporters. They ask hard questions and they're relentless. And they were quite suspicious and quite dubious about me.
But I think it's undeniable that the Times is a liberal paper.
Now I worry. If people ended up liking me, did I do the job wrong So I decided they didn't end up liking me - they ended up being able to deal with me.
You can certainly go back to any number of stories - early coverage of Vietnam, the Holocaust - to show the press failing to tell the story.
I believe the Times is a great newspaper, but a profoundly fallible one.
Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper Of course it is.
Gail didn't want me commenting on the opinion pages. I was hired by the news department and, despite the rabid assertions of the Times' enemies and detractors, the two really have nothing to do with each other.
We think it's crucially important for us to understand and be actively involved in the digital distribution of content.
I think Tierney is also more libertarian than he is conservative in the conventional sense.
Brooks clearly lines up on the conservative side, but like Safire, he's a libertarian conservative, not an evangelical Christian.
If you really hate George Bush, you don't want to read about his hobbies or that he's nice to his friends or that he's good company at dinner.
The Times' new credibility committee report that was issued on Monday very specifically said they will be putting in a policy that reporters must get permission from their department heads to appear on television, which I think is a really good thing.
I think it's one of the Times' problems that they haven't made it clear to readers what various formats mean.
That the Op-Ed page is very important in readers' and the nation's perception of the Times, the perception of its editorial positions, and of its implicit editorial positions as expressed by the publisher's choice of people who are given the freedom to write opinion columns.
If there had been three public editors before me, the body might have absorbed it a little bit better.
I'm afraid we'll see reporters stop chasing quotes around the same time dogs stop chasing cars.