Often, when I later listened to the tapes of the interview I would hear that I would rush in to break the silence. The worst is when you ask a question and don't let them answer by saying, "Of course, it's probably because of blah, blah, blah." And you go on and on and then they say, "Yes." So you don't get a quote from them.

Often, when I later listened to the tapes of the interview I would hear that I would rush in to break the silence. The worst is when you ask a question and don't let them answer by saying, "Of course, it's probably because of blah, blah, blah." And you go on and on and then they say, "Yes." So you don't get a quote from them.

With a good editor you find yourself shaping as you talk and they will ask a couple of questions that open new things. Some are good at line editing too, but there's this other, less visible talent.

Many things make the ideal magazine story . But one thing is that it calls attention to the reader to something that they never would have imagined being interested in. And you leave them with a sense of wonder. I have to think more about this.

Because America isn't perfect, it must be evil. Because Marxist regimes make claims of perfection, they must be good. ... Remind me again, was it John Ashcroft or Fidel Castro who put H.I.V. sufferers in concentration camps?

The Voice did not consider itself a conventional magazine. It took me awhile to realize that it was named The Voice for a reason. They wanted voices. At the time, good magazine stories were still believed to be written in the third person based on the false belief they were more objective. Of course some conventional stories require third person, but in the really interesting stories - the ones I got do to at The Voice and Esquire - were about subjectivity, subjectivities.

That was an important thing to learn - the more preparation you do the more a subject will respect you. But also, the more you'll think about what the real story is.