this proliferation of voices -- there is a lot of good about it, but the bad is that it creates this baa's that sometimes makes -- this buzz that sometimes makes investigative journalism difficult, because you are under a spotlight. >> what did you think about the thing on john edwards? some people would say they were so successful they deserve the pulitzer, and i do not know about you, but i suspect the. >> i have no idea whether they did or not. >> has his -- historically, has any institution like that ever gotten a pulitzer? >> "the national enquirer" has never gotten a pulitzer, and one issue is paying sources for stories. i wrote a column about it at the time. i felt "the new york times" in particular and mainstream media was slow and showed poor reflexes on the story. the national enquirer driveled that out over a long time, and i can understand why some of the initial stories did not provoke more of response, but later on, by the time there were photographed with the senator holding a baby with the woman, i think everybody should have been asking much harder questions in pursuing th