I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got those documents from. I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS.
Many have been with the show for years, and they have sources in the business, so we do know things, but until it is verified, we don't run with the story.
All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington.
That's my role, I go get news.
It simply is not cost affective to cover stories from independent sources.
I think it's weird that the news cedes so much ground to Wikipedia. That isn't true in other informational sectors.
How much of the national news that you report to the public each night consists of information you've actually gone out and dug up on your own?
I'm talking to people all of the time. So it hasn't really had a big impact. Access is never my main concern anyway. If you keep digging and making phone calls you can get stories and not have to rely on the good graces of the Pentagon spokesperson. I am not in his good graces.
You know, I was at CBS News for 28 years. I may have run an unidentified source. Frankly, I don't remember.
The way we get our news is very important, and the idea that the media doesn't always do right by us, and that they focus on things they shouldn't for ratings, is very important, and it's absolutely worthy of ridicule.
The reason that I'm so fast at what I do is - I'm not saying that I'm getting stories that nobody else has - the difference is that if a tip goes out to five people, and I know that it's a reliable source, I just tweet it out. If you're at a respectable news organization, that would be considered irresponsible.
