And we seem to go in cycles. There seems to be a periodicity to it, as with many things. In the late '80s, there was a great focus on the privacy of public officials and whether journalists were doing too much, well, that sort of echoed a similar concern a century ago when Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote their famous law review article. What I find interesting is whether, in fact, journalists are doing worse off. Well, I suspect not as fully as we should, because the older one gets, you begin to see theses cycles and these patterns.
History is, in some ways, in conflict with news, which tries to see new things.
There are very few things that haven't happened before. But that said, there's also a lot more which isn't as good. That's one of those things that we're trying to do with the Columbia Journalism Review , which has sort of evolved. We were perceived as much more of a scold than I think we should have been, and that leads to a lack of effectiveness. So we're trying to be more praising of positive things to balance things up.