There won't be editors in the future with the Internet world, with citizen reporting. That doesn't scare me.

I envision a future where there'll be 300 million reporters, where anyone from anywhere can report for any reason. It's freedom of participation absolutely realized.

I'm not mean.

The first step in good reporting is good snooping.

All truths begin as hearsay, as far as I'm concerned.

Because I have success, it doesn't mean I'm part of the mainstream. I'm still an outsider.

You would be amazed what the ordinary guy knows.

I've written thousands of stories, started hundreds of news cycles.

There's a danger of the Internet just becoming loud, ugly and boring with a thousand voices screaming for attention.

Not everything I do is gossip or bedroom. To the contrary, I think that's just an easy label to dismiss me and to dismiss the new medium.

Some of the best news stories start in gossip. Monica Lewinsky certainly was gossip in the beginning. I had heard it months before I printed it.

I never think too far into the future. I'm too busy thinking about tomorrow's news.

I do most of my business on that dirty Internet that you were just talking about, where I find there is a lot of freedom to report exactly what I want.

If the first lady is concerned about this Internet cycle, what would she have done during the heyday when there was 12, 13 editions of a paper in one day? What would she have done with that news cycle?

The media is comparable to government-probably passes government in raw power.

If technology has finally caught up with individual liberty, why would anyone who loves freedom want to rethink that?

There's nothing more exciting than to watch a story break and grow, and to be the first one to present it to the world.

It seems to me we are losing our way in an effort to get the ratings.

With a modem, anyone can follow the world and report on the world-no middle man, no big brother. I guess this changes everything.

I cover media people the way they cover politicians.

There won't be editors in the future with the Internet world, with citizen reporting. That doesn't scare me.

I want one place I can go that is not going to be lewd, and I'm not sure there is anything left.

I didn't go to the right schools, didn't come from a well-known family, nor was I even remotely connected to a powerful publishing dynasty.

I don't necessarily think anything on a Web site can have a result.

Television saved the movies. The Internet is going to save the news business.

I was first to break the news about the death of Lady Diana. The CNN team couldn't get into makeup fast enough.

A lot of the stories are internal. They leak it to me wanting to get attention, wanting to get that headline. More times than not, I will not give it to them.

The Internet feeds off the main press, and the main press feeds off the Internet. They're working in tandem.

I follow my conscience - and this is upsetting to some people, but I maintain the conscience is going to be the only thing between us and communication in the future.

Meet them once and you're innocent; meet them twice and you're not. So if you see me having drinks again with Harvey Weinstein then, okay, you've got me.

We have entered an era vibrating with the din of small voices. Every citizen can be a reporter, can take on the powers that be.

Honestly, I expected to get a cold reception because of my subject matter. But when editors took a look at the story I had to tell, and saw that this was not a parochial story at all, they really warmed to it.

I think that they had afforded me many opportunities to do good work there, and I think I did. It was a wonderful four years. I really worked with some great people, terrific producers, terrific editors.

So I went out and bought myself a copy of the Writer and Artist Yearbook, bought lots of magazines and got on the phone and talked to editors about ideas for stories. Pretty soon I found myself hired to do interviews and articles and went off and did them.

If it were not for the fact that editors have become so timorous in these politically correct times, I would probably have a greater readership than I have.

Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers.

I try to help people become the best possible editors of their own work, to help them become conscious of the things they do well, of the things they need to look at again, of the wells of material they have not even begun to dip their buckets into.

There are plenty of bad editors who try to impose their own vision on a book.

Writers would submit scripts to me, and if I liked one well enough to submit to magazine editors, I had the know-how whether the story was good or bad.

I wrote poems in my corner of the Brooks Street station. I sent them to two editors who rejected them right off. I read those letters of rejection years later and I agreed with those editors.

If there had been three public editors before me, the body might have absorbed it a little bit better.

The Bush administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'

Editors of open anthologies actively seek submissions from all comers, established and unknown. They are willing to read whatever the tide washes up at their feet.

The first version of The Beautiful Room Is Empty was the first mss. I'd ever submitted to New York editors.

And I remember that the editors wanted to have a witness to say that this was really the case, because it was a very sharp picture of the just the face, the head of the fetus inside the womb.

The real literary editors have mostly been fired. Those that remain are all "bottom line" editors; everything depends on the money.

You're at the mercy of the editors' hands.

Not that I've always loved the movie when they finally come out, or if they ever come out-because many of them don't come out-but I've gotten to work with really good story editors and stuff like that.

There are many more want-to-be writers out there than good editors.