I was probably being a little cocky, which I do when I feel that I don't know what I'm talking about.
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.
Right, but there's expertise and then there's inside information. And I think we have to make a distinction.
If there had been three public editors before me, the body might have absorbed it a little bit better.
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 think it's one of the Times' problems that they haven't made it clear to readers what various formats mean.
Keep public editors around, give readers more access to the editors of the paper, constantly challenge itself, and be aware of its own history.
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.