I think there is a real value in an editorial point-of-view and in editorial curation, and in putting together an entire narrative around a set of topics is important.
While we can all access articles and information in so many places now - across blogs, in newspapers, on video - there is something very powerful about putting it all together into an edited format in a single issue that has a narrative stretching across the themes.
What could I have possibly learned except the really most important thing, which is that I did not want to work at the 'New York Times'? Beyond that, I learned how a newspaper works.
Everybody is someone else's instrument.
I produced some very good work at 'New York' magazine.
I was working at the 'New York Times,' ruing every second of my life, thinking how was I ever going to get out of here, and thinking that one could only do it the way newspaper people have always done it. I needed a scoop, and I would go out and I would dream upon coming upon fires or the sky falling in front of me or anything.
One of the things about having worked at certain places is that it becomes very hard after you stop working at them to continue a relationship, to continue even reading them. So I must confess that I don't read 'New York' magazine anymore.
Everybody is promoting something.
If you tweet for me, I'll tweet for you.
One thing I can say right off the bat is that creating great editorial is a huge challenge, and you can't help but go through the process and not appreciate how valuable this skill is, and how much I admire the people who do this every day.
I think one of the best jobs in the universe must be being the editor of 'The New Yorker', but there are a number of magazines that I'd be excited to be the editor of. They would be 'Wired', 'The New Yorker' and probably, 'Vogue'.
