cases more and more dissent it has to be and the fact is there some people who are still writing longformprojects that will appear over tool full print pages on a sunday, but they are working closely with teams of producers and full-time media people thinking about what kind of other content we can pull into it so when it does launch its a pretty vital and exciting experience. to take an example, couple of summers ago we did dana priest did a big article looking at the contracts in the u.s. government and the creation of this huge secret national security apparatus since 9/11. we spend nearly three years on that. when we launched it within the first week we had 10 million pages and much of that was people coming in and completed the experience on the informed issue than people would have had before because a it could go into her database and if you work in montana you could go into her database and find out that there in a contract given by the cia for somebody doing something in anaconda montana which for the person who is interested in what is going on in montana had been different info

i think that a good longform as a in the weekly standard or national review or the nation, makes a sustainedrgument is so much more valuable to me than an allegedly objective story in the trojan horse thing. the way i compared it to the rules of procedure in a courtroom. we know there is a defense attorney who is biased, he wants to get his client off. but no one is allowed to lie, we have strict rules about it. if you don't deal with the other side of this, you're going to lose. at the end of the day, this adversarial relationship, where everyone is out in the open and the counterforce -- it is more likely to yield a true result is left for the reader to figure out why on earth, i don't know, -- there was a story many years ago in the "washington post". >> very interesting story. >> but it opens itself up to why my on the front page. i think that the no labels thing is another way for us to fly under the false lack of an ideological agenda. i'll just give you one agenda. the review makes fun of me for my argument about the centered and they say that goldberg doesn't understand that the real

it just is and i think a good longform essay in "the new yorker" or the republic or the "national reviewandard" or the nation that makes a sustained argument for something is so much more valuable to me then and allegedly objective story that conceals all the biases behind these trojan horse things. is like the rules of ethics in a courtroom. the rules of procedure. we know the processes are biased in one conviction. we know the defense attorney is biased and getting the client off. but, no one is allowed to lie. there are strict rules. if you don't deal with the other side's best argument and you only deal with his worse, you are going to lose and at the end of the day this adversarial relationship for everyone's biases are out in the open and accounted for, it's imperfect but it's more likely to yield a true result than some sort of process for everyone, where the mainstream press, biases are hidden. is left to the reader to figure out why on earth, i don't know "the washington post" thought the shelling story from 52 years ago was a good story. >> host: a very well-written story. >> g

longform cement' agent./'''' perhaps other americans as well.eneral to have the gall to''' complain.'/'/' next week, he appears before th' senate judiciary committee and/ has another opportunity to come/ clean and tell what he knows and when he knew it, rather than/' continue to mislead the united' states congress and its charging are responsible these for oversight. >> [inaudible question] [inaudible question] it sounds like you setting up for negotiations. what a -- what are your reactions to that? >> the joint select committee did not succeed because with every problem, with every solution, there was one mantra for the democrats. out of frustration, frankly, we propose -- we finally propose doing exactly that. senator toomey led the effort. all of the republicans agreed. we put $250 million. only the people in the top two tax brackets would pay these 250 million -- excuse me, $250 billion. it still wasn't enough. our question is, what is not? when you say put revenues on the table, we put revenues on the table before it to no effec