I'm a big believer in the truth; I'm a kind of a fundamentalist. My goal is at least to the best of my ability to try to ferret it out. Especially when I believe there is a crime, I'm not a post-modernist: if somebody shot someone or poisoned them, they are responsible for somebody's death.

I'm a big believer in the truth; I'm a kind of a fundamentalist. My goal is at least to the best of my ability to try to ferret it out. Especially when I believe there is a crime, I'm not a post-modernist: if somebody shot someone or poisoned them, they are responsible for somebody's death.

Early in my career I was much more confident in the almost omniscient powers of a reporter, because you could find anything out and then write the definitive piece about it. And as I got older, I got much more humble about trying to learn everything, with what eludes you, especially with history.

One of the dangers today is that when we don't like what the facts tell us, we just attack the facts, and we undermine the credibility of institutions. That is true not just for reporting; it's true of when people are attacking the congressional budget office, or when they're attacking certain science - that's where we can get into a dangerous realm.

I do think that in many cases, where crimes have been covered up and perpetrators can escape justice, history can provide some accounting. It can identify the killers, ensure that their names are remembered, and it can give voice to and record the victims, and make sure, even more importantly, that their voices and their stories are remembered and heard. And I don't think there's justice, but I do think history can play an important role in that accounting.