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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

I cover media people the way they cover politicians.

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

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.

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.

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