consequences if the panel failed to decrease the debit. he's one of most popular bloggers in cyber-space. can he still call himself a conservative? our conversation with andrew sullivan. >> especially during the iraq war to have made such a massive blunder and be forced to hold myself to account for it and have my readers do so and stick with me, that was a very maturing experience. >> plus, the "huffington post" expands to canada. so what's up with the canadian woman who's running it, eh? we'll meet her. i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." in an increasingly shrill media environment, running for president means being attacked, assailed, mocked, ridiculed, bashed, and otherwise denigrated. rarely have we seen the harsh rhetoric unleashed except from a man who's been a political leader for the past two decades, the former speaker of the house. >> gingrich is an amazing efficient condition dc in that it -- candidacy in that it embodies everything about washington, the classic rental politician. >> it's not surprising coming from me, but that was about the most arrogant and unself-aware, and those are probably the only words i can use, thing for any politician in this republican field to say. >> disgusting. >> he is a mean, vindictive s.o.b. who does not really care about anything other than power. >> if anyone's dirty, it's newt gingrich. a man whose personal morality has been drawn from the sewer. a man who pontificates about his catholic faith and morality but repeatedly commits adultery. >> and that's just some of what's been on television. how much of this has to do with gingrich's record and how much has to do with his relations with the washington press corps? joining us in washington, danielle crittendon, author and managing of blogs for the "huffington post" canada. eleanor clift, for "newsweek" and "the daily beast." and jackie kucinich for "usa today." that was sizzling stuff there. why do some commentator have such a deep-seated an muss toward newt? >> it's hard to feel too sorry for him. people remember when he came in washington and instructed republicans to call democrats pathetic and corrupt. he pioneered going on c-span and tearing apart your opponent. but any -- in this presidential season, he proves there's more than two or three act in american life because he's conducted himself very well. i love some of his positions. and i think the press is just having fun with him. and he can handle it. he's handled it very well. >> not too much -- >> no. >> danielle crittendon, even pundits, george will there, hardly the only one, can't seem to stand this guy. is it certainly. >> i don't know that it's personal. i met newt gingrich types, and he's actually very charming and entertaining person one on one. but he is -- i think he does embody a certain amount of that -- that george will line of rental politician. he's coming out this fannie may stuff looking very badflation. there's a whole sort of tawdry tiffany -- thing around him. in the debate when he was making that pitch for immigration, one of your cnn contributors shrewdly noted it wasn't just about being compassionate for immigrants or reach for the spanish vote, that his constituency of donors is very much connected to restaurant, to the gaming industry -- >> uh-huh. >> and they employ a lot of illegal immigrants. so it's hard for me to look at him, and i think a lot of people to look at him and see a sincere, unsullied, you know, person that they would want as their president. >> so many politicians are unsullied. we'll come pack to that. jackie kucinich, journalists in this city have known and covered newt gingrich for something like 30 years. when he became speaker of the house in 1995, he was treated as a deputy president of the republican takeover. and some level, does familiarity breed contempt here? >> he's got a long record, long record that we all are digging through again, what's old is new again right now. and i think that's -- maybe there's some frustration not for me, but i think with some of the people who have covered him for a long time, that they know he said x, y, and z. now he's saying, c, d, f. so it's -- >> lots of politicians change their positions on things or appear to be -- have situational ethics. you heard some of that. >> it's true -- >> morality from the sewer. >> it's true, but it's unapologetic -- newt gingrich social security this unapologetic, this is what i'm saying today because i'm saying it today. that might be a part of it. >> is there a lingering resentment for the way he belittled the media. often the debate moderators in televised faceoffs. >> he's gotten the best of us as an industry for long time. i think there's a love/hate relationship here. he doesn't have cad soundbites, he invites them on the spot. you never know what he's going to see. more sincere than -- to say. more sincere than mitt romney. he's intellectually capable, one of the few on the stage in the republican debates who actually belongs there. >> in other words, he didn't have a 53-second pause when somebody asked him about libya. >> no. >> danielle, another factor here. the pundits, collected conventional wisdom of the news business said he was dead a few months ago when he had no money and most of his staff quit. how dare he come back and make us all look silly. >> well, okay, i'm going to throw out a bizarre analogy out here. the race with mitt romney reminded me of, if you remember the plot from "sleep unless seattle." meg ryan is engaged to the perfect guy, checks all the boxes. then she falls this love with tom hank. and -- there's been that -- the non-mit -- >> who plays tom hanks -- >> this is the problem. newt has come back but he's no tom hanks. it's another brief, you know, desire to find that tom hanks character. but he's not in the -- we're going to have to marry mitt. >> did it make the press look silly to write his o bit wear? >> they always do that. two months from now it will be someone else. >> john mccain, if you remember, his staff quit the last cycle. everyone proclaimed him dead. >> in 2007 the priss said john mccain was toast. he -- press said john mccain was toast. you would think perhaps we would learn a lesson from the premature bauerial from the senator from arizona. going back to eleanor's point, jackie, do many journalist have a respect -- maybe a grudging respect -- for gingrich's intellect. he is a man of idea. some people say he's got a lot of ideas, a few good ones, some not so good ones. he does -- his supporters would say he elevate the debate. >> i don't think anyone's ever said that newt gingrich isn't the idea guy. he's been -- he was the idea guy when he wasn't in congress. he's been the -- the republicans have been carting him back to the house and to the senate to talk about his ideas since he's been out of office. i don't think anybody said that. i think what comes when he -- the ideas change and they're the exact opposite of what he -- like with the fannie mae and freddie mac thing, he was saying the president's staff should resign because of their relationship with it, yet he was working with them. >> there's an air of condescension. at the debate he said if a serious country we'd do this. he accused moderators of asking mickey mouse questions, gotcha questions, 30 seconds on the future of health care. i wonder if that gets under the skin some people. >> i think he's right about a lot of that. and i think that's even more irritating, the fact that he is right. i think he -- he will make a great non-romney. he will make the race entertaining. he'll make romney perform. i think -- i don't think many of us believe that he's going to go on to win the nomination of presidency. but we could be priechb wrong again. >> you may be right. but many of us did not believe he would be leading in polls at the end of november. let me come back to the cnn debate on foreign policy. wolf blitzer, the blitz, as herman cain calls him, asked about his support for immigration reform law past in the reagan administration. here's how the former speaker answered the question. >> some called it amnesty then. they still call it amnesty now. what would you do if you were president of the united states with these millions of illegal immigrant, many of whom have been in this country for a long time? >> in f you've been here 25 years and got three kids and two grandkids, paying taxes, obeying the law, belong to a local church, i don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out. >> are you saying that what he's proposing, giving amnesty in effect, allowing illegal immigrants to stay is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegal? >> there's no question. >> first of all, jackie, how did wolf blitzer did in framing that question? that was the news of the debate. >> i think so. it was interesting to see the reaction here in washington, and the reaction in places like iowa and in -- some of these early primary states. in the venue, this are a lot of people who are like, you had, that's a -- newt gingrich, a really reasonable answer on immigration. but then you read some of the plogs in iowa, and it was like, my gosh, this is a mortal wound for newt gingrich. he -- >> was it smart for blitzer to follow up and bring romney in and also bachmann -- >> absolutely. to show the contrast. that was one of the great things about the debate. it wasn't a lockstep debate with the candidate saying different things on one issue. that hasn't been necessarily the case in some of the other debates. >> some of the questions from the people at heritage and aei who co-sponsored the debate. the median narrative, eleanor, is that this humane answer on gingrich's point of grimds is going to kill him with grassroots conservatives. i think it gets him nice notices from the media elite who think his position is reasonable. >> right. it violates ideological purity on the right. if ideological purity is what newt gingrich is about, he can't survive. he's not pure on -- in so many cases. this was a realistic answer. and i think it shows that he's not willing to change his positions to pander -- >> does he get points for candor or non-pandering or recognizing reality from people in the journalism business if not from people who are going to necessarily vote in the republican primaries? does the press like what he did? >> the press liked what he did, yes. and i think the press was appalled at mitt romney's scrambling to get to newt gingrich's right. what kind of world do we live in? >> now, do journalists also like it, danielle, when a politician -- we saw this with bill clinton in 1992, what was called the sister-soldier moment. takes a stand that he knows is going to be unpopular with the base of his party. again, this may really hurt gingrich. but do you get points for standing up for -- appearing to stand up for principle? >> well, i already gave you my cynical response to that. but i think even now, the problem is it's during the primary. and as we've seen, the republican party right now is really holding its candidates to extreme litmus tests. that it seems that there is no room for any kind of reasonable debate on immigration or these issues without saying, oh, he just supported -- even, you know, immigration -- against illegals in a humane way. he's out, he's dead. you have to wait until the -- you've got to wait until you're the candidate i think before you can risk taking those positions. >> that's an interesting point because it suggests that the way the press scores these things, the instant reaction was, okay, he hurt himself, he's going to bleed. on the other hand, why did the press not look at the substance of it and say, you know what, we're really not going to kick 11 million people out this country. so good for newt. >> well, also, we're watching this in sort of -- because of this, i think this increasing litmus time, we're watching this state of cognitive disdense, that reasonable things that candidates are saying will play very well in the country. they seem totally reasonable. but they are not reasonable to the republican base. >> in other words, the -- >> jonhuntsman is a perfect example of this. if the media or the elite were electing a president, jon huntsman would be president. >> instead he's at 1%. when we come back, remember all the terrible things we were told would happen if the supercommittee failed? would it all just media hype? o, and in 1942, of course, they were sent away. after the war, as a japanese coming back from camp, he started a little store on main street in seattle. of course they needed some money, and bank of america was the only bank who would talk to my father. and we've stayed with bank of america. we have four stores now, three in the pacific northwest and one in oregon. my parents would not believe how popular it is now. nice, huh? yeah. you know what else is nice is all the savings you can get on cruze and traverse over there. oh! that's my beard. [ chuckles ] it's amazing. ♪ [ male announcer ] this holiday, chevy's giving more. now very well qualified lessees can sign and drive a 2012 cruze ls for around $199 a month. ♪ and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now. we're america's natural gas. the smarter power, today. learn more at anga.us. the headlines played up the super drama in august when washington's paralysis brought the country to the brink of default. the last-minute deal including a plan to turn over the debt debacle to 12 people in congress. they'd not known as the supercommittee, and journalists solidly informed us they would be under tremendous pressure to reach a compromise because otherwise, there would be terrible, no good, horrible, unthinkable consequences. jackie kucinich, the media were given that there would be awful consequences if the supercommittee fails. this week it couldn't even get a vote on anything. now we're hearing, the cuts don't take place until 2013. and congress could undo it. what happened? >> they hadn't met for weeks as a group. i mean, if -- unless they were working the phones quite a bit, there wasn't a lot going on. yeah, there was totally -- i agree, i think it was hyped. it was hyped that the -- it was apocalyptic. you can always tell when it comes to washington whether something's actually apocalyptic or not in theory. is that they will get something done. might not be great but it get done. >> what would be the motive for the press trumpt etting the storyline? >> i think it's more fun to talk about what could happen than what actually, you know -- >> you know, we were downgraded, the u.s. credit of downgraded after the debt debacle. and i think the genuine concern was that if this committee did not reach some sort of deal that the other two rating agencies would do the same. the other agencies sort of assumed they would fail. but this committee did have special powers. they only had to reach a majority. the bowles-simpson, the gold standard needed 2/3. i bought into it. i thought they were rigged to succeed. >> you thought the drama as trumpeted by the media was legitimate? >> i did. the one area where we fell short was not pointing out that congress would have a year to shape the cuts. and i think that was kind of a hidden nugget. >> looking at it from the outside, danielle crittenden, all the media huffing and puffing over this the last three or four months, does it seem an absurd spectacle now that it became nothing -- >> which story are we talking about now? that seem to be something up absolutely -- >> the super duper committee. >> i know, i know. of course. you say why do networks put these in -- >> you say this can be applied to any washington -- >> exactly. we could bring up any topic and have the same -- same reaction. >> do you think -- i mean, republicans moved a little from their no way, no how, any tax increases. but not very much. do you think that journalist have gotten sucked into a he said/she said narrative. both parties equally to blame when that may not have been why this collapsed? >> i think this thing collapsed because the republicans wouldn't go as far as any of the other debt commissions, the gang of six, all of them. and the democrats actually gave more than president obama wished them to do. you know, i do think that the fault lies with republicans. most don't want to come out and say that. >> do you want to challenge that? >> it always -- it's always the republicans these days. >> well -- >> i'm going to acknowledge that i am not an expert on the supercommittee. and i will -- i will reserve judgment on that one. >> see, i would contend this is fundamentally what the parties argue about, we're talking taxes, we're talking entitlement reform, talking not wanting to cut entitlement and wanting to raise revenue. that's why they're republicans and democrats. this is difficult stuff. >> in order for the issue to go away, it's still, you know, huge amounts of spending. potential spending cuts, potential revenue. it has to be thought out. maybe it get done after the election. the question to you is, did the -- did this highlight the dysfunction of washington? >> they've been all year the stories. not only with the supercommittee, with the debt -- with the debt limit, everything is highlighted that the fact that congress cannot meet in the middle right now for whatever reason. they -- there is not -- they're not in a compromising mood. >> you don't think it's's been swept under the rug nobody seems to be able to get anything done in the city? you think that's been front and center in the stories -- >> no -- >> it's a deliberate strategy on the part of the republican party frankly. >> it may be part of the tone that we have gone through the fourth thanksgiving in which the country is in a dire economic strait such as which none of us have ever seen in recent memory. and thus, you know, the fact that all of these issues seem to be paralyzed and not getting done i think would build up a lot of anger and apock lip tick feeling -- >> millions unemployed and that bothers me. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. coming up in the second part of "reliable sources," conversation with blogger andrew sullivan about journalism's changing landscape and life as a conservative who's become caustically critical of the republican party. plus the "huffington post" canadian style. danielle crittenden will talk about tailoring that web site to fit her country's taste. and later, actor hugh grant takes on britain's tabloid press. andrew sullivan was an accomplished journalist at a young age, coming from britain to become editor of "the new republic" at 27. heats been a newspaper columnist and author. most of all a blogger. one of the first online writers to attract a big following. the dish moved from the atlanta to my web site, thedailybeast. i spoke to him down the hall to dish about journalism. andrew sullivan, welcome. >> thank you, howie. >> you are a conservative. you wrote a book called "the conservative soul." yet, you've been vitriolic toward the republican party. what explains that? >> because i'm still a conservative, and they're not. >> they're not? >> well, no. i think if you -- if you look at what they're saying, which is that really the most of major institutions in this country and government should be exploded, i mean, should be sdproi be destr get rid of traditions like medicare, cut it off with a voucher system or preemptive war again iran which, again, violate most conservative ideas, the idea that you can't defeat and cut the budget deficit without raising taxes at all is not a very conservative position. i mean, it's a very anti-tax, anti-government position. it isn't a conservative one. if you define conservative as liking the status quo, as wanting it to be limited government but understanding there are two parties in the system, a little give and take, compromise. none of that is on display at all. >> you don't mince words. after the cnn debate you said the ignorance and narrow not of mind and shallowness were on display. let me run through what you say about some of the gop contenders. newt gingrich -- only in washington, you write, could such a half-baked narcissist no-nothing blowhard be regarded as an intellectual. >> yes. >> sounds a little harsh. >> i don't think. this is a man who couldn't get tenure at not a terribly distinguished college and never managed to publish any papers. yet he's routinely introduced on this network and others as if he's a historian, intellectual, or somehow with the brains of the republican party. he's none of that. there's no evidence of that. >> why does the press treat him that way? >> they're lazy. this is what they'll say. he sounds clever even though if you actually wait a couple of seconds and listen to what he's saying, is not that clever. they're lazy. that's the model for newt. he's the smart one, the ideas man. >> by contrast, rick perry, you write, ignorant of the most basic facts of war. >> yes. well he seems to think that there are no laws or rules of warfare. that once we were at war, we can kill or torture or capture anybody or do whatever we want with them. that simply is a massive lack of awareness of what the laws of war, to which we are sig force as the -- signatories as the or used to be mean. >> and herman cain, facing the sexual harassment allegation. you said he should drop out of the race. >> i actually think that when five people accuse you of sexual harassment and in fact there are two settlements legally, this is an allegation but actually settled with year-long salary, i think abuse of women in that kind of professional way is disqualifying. is -- as if there weren't enough other disqualifying reasons for him. now, i took that seriously, i'm kind of -- offended that in so many others just moved along. >> you think it was kind of a story that the media temporarily fixated on and even though it was never resolved, moves on to the next thing? president obama -- i think it's fair to say you've become a pretty unabashed admirer of the president. yet you write, "i worry he's going to run on fear." >> yeah, i'm in the tom freedman as -- i have been for quite a while -- >> the "new york times"/"washington post" columnist, yeah. >> in as much as they supported, and i loved bowles-simpson as a great obvious strategic and fair way to balance the budget. >> the defense commission appointed by obama. >> exactly. said, there's a deal to be had, an obvious deal that the democrats will give on entitle. cuts and should and must. serious ones. and the republicans will have to give way on some revenue increases. the beauty of it is that you can get a lot of the increase in revenues without raising the rates because the tax code is riddled with deductions and getting rid of them would raise a huge amount of money. that deal that everybody knows is the right deal like the 1967 lions in israel which everybody knows is going to have to be the end result, yet somehow this obvious deal we can't make. >> but given -- let me get a little further insight into your philosophy. given the tone of your blog, the thing i read that you say about republicans, and the fact that are you most of the time a pretty big booster of barack obama, you say the party has moved. can you really still kaug call yourself a conservative -- still call yourself a conservative sniff. >> yeah. look at the british conservative government. just raised taxes and cut spending by about a 3-1 harj in. roughly what bowles-simpson is. a conservative plan. >> you're a tori? >> i would count myself -- not a radical populist or pseudo-conservatives as richard hofstader once brilliantly described them as. i don't feel a multicultural, multiracial america, i embrace it. i don't think that the country is vulnerable to foreign threats to the degree that we have to have the same amount of defense spending as we had at the height of the cold war. >> you are not infallible, nor would you claim to be. you were a strong supporter of george w. bush in -- >> a supporter -- >> strong supporter. and the -- >> i was. >> do you feel lonely? do you feel that other conservative commentators have made adjustments to deal with the right -- we're told the republican party and you haven't? do you feel that you're out on a limb? >> i thought i was out on a limb maybe in 2004. i don't feel that way anymore. there are plenty of even people who feel more toward the republican party are aware that, for example, this field is pathetic. this -- this group of candidates. even the -- even their own base cannot rally around their front-runner, and they're tossing new ones out and b. the quality of the candidates and then there is a quality candidate like huntsman who's completely ignored. >> does the mainstream media in your view have to -- so afraid of being accused of being biased that it has to pretend that this is a perfectly good feeling, not pathetic -- to use your word? >> i do. i think that's a classic tendency that to associate whatever they're -- as conservatism, whatever incarnation the republican party as a conservative and vice-versa with the democrats, and that's an easy, again, lazy thing. it's not true. the country and republican party moved dramatically to the right in ways that are really beyond anything one imagined, say, under reagan. no tax increases ever under any circumstances. when we have 50-year historic lows of revenues, that's not what reagan did, nor reagan also made peace with the soviet union having confronted --eration w r amnesty for illegal immigrants. all of these topics now rule you out of consideration even for membership within the republican party. >> let's talk about your journalistic life. you blog every ten minutes it seems. something like 270 posts a week. has it changed the way you think, the way your mind works to constantly object deadline? >> yeah. i think it has to, doesn't it? you're thinking out loud as they say. and the news is coming in. everything you -- you immediately respond to, you have to say and the readers implicitly understand health care reform is provisional. my best take now. but by opening yourself up like that and especially during the iraq war, to have made such a massive blunder and to then be forced to actually hold myself to account for it and have my readers do so and stick with me, that was a very maturing experience. and i think if every journalist in washington had to go through grueling day-by-day accountability to their readers in terms of fact and previous argument, then we'd number a more accountable place. and i do think that the critique of washington journalist and pundits especially of not changing, of not admitting when they've been wrong, of not taking account of their own errors, i think it's an important critique. that's why people will start to sort of not really listen anymore. they know what they're going to say. >> more of my conversation with andrew sullivan in a moment as we turn to how the personal mixes with the political when it comes to being a gay journalist. to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. yeah. it's electric. i don't think so. it's got a gas tank right here. electric tank, right over here. an electric tank? really, stu? is that what you pour the electricity in? it's actually both, guys. i can plug in and go 35 miles gas free, or i can fill up and go a whole lot farther. is that my burger? oh. i just got bun. i didn't even bite any burger. you've been a crusader, irwould -- i would say for same-sex marriage for a long time. you were there the day new york state passed its law. what was your personal raeactio when this happened? >> my personal reaction after the vote was cast and i finished the live blog and heard a cheer come up from the bar blow me where i was blogging in my favorite diner ifn adams-morgan was to suddenly cry. i don't want to go all john boehner on you, but i kind of blogged -- it's a long struggle. i wrote the first piece in '8 the. a long time ago -- '89. a long time ago. i was a kid basically. and never believing it would happen in my lifetime. and to see this argument -- again, i was regarded as not a conservative for a long time because of it. who shows up to defend it in court? ted olsen. eventually -- >> conservative lawyer who -- >> what the republican senate in new york state of the one that put it over the time. >> right. >> for me to hear those arguments that some of us have been honing for years come back at us and finally make sense to us was very -- very, very encouraging. i mean, amazing case, the fact that this country isn't hope willy broken. thathopelessly broken, that views can change and we can come to agreement on some things. >> referred to as the american civil rights pioneer even though you're obviously from britain. back in 1996 when you were at the new republic, you came to me, and i was the journalist who you chose to tell the world about something that had been secret. that is that you were living with hiv. how did it feel at that time to go public with that difficult news? >> well, you probably remember. it was rough. especially since -- probably if his some p.r. manager i would have done it better. but especially since it occurred simultaneously with my leaving the "new republic." i didn't want people to think i was leaving to die. and i wanted them to understand really that this was an important topic. and as a journalist, i couldn't continue to write about this epidemic and about what was happening to gay men in america without being honest about my own vantage point which had shifted dramatically. >> it came to bother you that you were living with the disease and i'm shoe youre your friends but not in the "new republic." >> i felt like i was living in the close, and it burned me up. if the immigration authorities wanted to, because i hadn't gotten my green card, they could have pounced on me. in the end, i was like, to hell with that. if they want to do it to me, they will do it to me. i will will do what i can to change the law. and i wrote that when aids -- when the plague ends, a piece in "the new york times," a couple years later. >> did you regard it at the time, given where medicine was as a death sentence? >> yeah. when i was diagnosed. it was a death sentence. the year i was diagnosed, i think, was '93. the peak -- nearly the peak of the aids deaths in this country. i think the peak was the following year. so it was not an academic exercise. and it's incredible to me how people have forgotten that. i mean, six times as many young americans died in ten years of hiv as died in vietnam. and that was -- that was a big wound. imagine going to the vietnam memorial and having it be six times as deep. >> so how your health now? >> great. >> doesn't -- >> i work too hard. >> okay. by choice, i presume? >> by choice. i'm learning to handle. the kind of blog that i do and my team produces now pause it's a team effort at the "daily beast," is grueling. completely grueling all the time. it never ends. there's no deadline. there's always a deadline. at the same time, it's the most exhilarating journalistic experience to pioneer this new medium, to get out in the weeds of it, to figure out the pitfalls of this new medium and to do it with a maximum amount of ability and independence was a dream. >> and one of the things that strikes me is due sort of merge the political and the personal. hiv is a perfect example. gay marriage, as well. what are your feelings it the catholic church. and you open yourself up to and don't suppress criticism of view. people said, oh, we had unprotected sex. you deal with stuff that's right there -- >> it's -- we run counterparts that are not phony ones. that are actually genuinely calming on stuff -- >> do you feel too exposed because you talk so much about your personal life. >> yes, yes. >> yet you continue to do it. >> yes. >> explain in one minute. >> because on some of these topics, i mean, for example, the agonizing and fascinating conversation on my blog about belief in god. my religious faith is mercilessly. but i want to get to the truth of stuff. and i think that you -- when you put yourself on the table as part of the truth and part of the -- people start taking you seriously as a truth-seeker. then they contribute in the same spirit. so some of these questions you're right, are very close to the bone. but most of them aren't cruel. most of them are genuinely trying to get me to the right place. and i think once you sort of accept that as a good thing, that you're going to have to lose yourself a little bit and lose some security a little bit because the truth is worth finding. even if your part of the -- the wreckage of finding that truth, then that's -- i think when you're told that you've got a few years to live, you start developing a sense of why the hell not. and i don't have an editor to tell me, andrew, you might want to shave that down. by the time someone said that, it's already published. >> you're your own editor, a blessing and a curse. you don't do much television these days, thank you very much. >> thank you, a delight to be here. after the break, the "huffington post" expands north to canada. journalist danielle crittenden on her plans for the web site. "huffington post" has been such a traffic monster on line this it's spawned legal edition was washington to l.a. not long ago, the expansion pushed north to canada with an edition tailored to the politics and culture of the country. arianna huffington picked writer and author danielle crittenden who rejoins us now, to write it. and does -- does "huffington post" canada have a different sensibility than the one in the united states? >> it does. it's got the same mix of politics and entertainment and news -- >> and gossip. >> and goes inand youtube videos of -- gossip and youtube videos that we expect. now it's got a canadian bent in our bloggers, we mix it up. we keep some of the american bloggers but have a lot of our original ones or new ones -- >> it said, watch the video, m.p. justin trudeau takes it off, but a striptease for charity. and sidney crosby returns to the national hockey league, even though he plays for pittsburgh. a huge story in canada. >> kind of big in canada, yeah. >> why would arianna -- "huffington post" is a famous liberal-leaning web site. how is it that you were chosen, coming from the right side of the spectrum, to run this? >> first, all of our political sense rehabilitate in play now. that -- sends are in play now. but i'm a longstanding journalist and editor. in the end i want what's unusual or different, what we're doing at "huffington post canada," i have right and left sharing space in blog rails. traditionally there are liberal publications, conservative publications in canada. but i'm mixing it all up together. so you can come and get that debate which hasn't -- canadians aren't as robust i find in their debates or in their debating and in their arguing as americans. we're way more polite. >> you going to change that -- >> just reserved. a little more reserved. it's fun. i want to have a real mix-up in the blog rail. >> i have it on authority that you and your husband live in washington, d.c., here. how are you able to run this canadian publication from the nation's capital? >> i'm doing a lot of commuting. we just built a house there this past summer, and all our family is there. we remain connected. and now of course me even more so. >> how much do canadians care about lindsay lohan or demi breaking up with ashton, or are these more american fixations? >> i think we still care a lot about those. what we care really about is royal family gossip. and that was actually one of the things we were trying hard to persuade the american theme when the royals visited canada, this was just huge. and we wanted to make a big deal of it. and i think although americans, you know, were interested in the royal visit, they saw them -- the royals more as visiting cel kate and will, not so much these sort of superstars that they are in canada. >> i often wonder why american news organizations let arianna get there first when it came to creating this site that polls in just about everything, creates all this buzzing, all this traffic. why did nobody in canada start the equivalent of "the huffington post"? >> i call it now the sale team 6 of new media. i think it is so incredibly lean and ready to go into these places, whereas the traditional media outlets are not. and i think right now we have -- we started in may, "the huffington post" canada started in may. we've already got 2 million unique visitors per month, beating the national post, but the news sites such as the cbc.com, globeandmail.com, those still draw in a lot of traffic. but -- >> well, critics would say that one of the reasons "the huffington post" is a great business model because most of the bloggers blog for free, and a lot of the content is borrowed, shall we say, with appropriate links from other news organizes to actually -- >> aggregated. >> aggregated. that actually have to pay reporters. has that caused any controversy in canada how it does here where some news organizations feel like their stuff is being, shall we say, excessively displayed by somebody who didn't have to pay for the reporting? >> well, i think first aggregation is now happening everywhere. we could say everybody is doing it. and i think -- i find with the bloggers and opinion that we get, people who are -- i mean, nobody's making a living these days as a freelance journalist or i should say very few. that paying journalism for opinion is something that has declined in the past decade. so people who are now putting out their opinions on a site like "the huffington post," they're doing it because they want that exposure, they want that base. i think of the internet like a vast trade show and we're giving you a really good prominent booth. but they're not doing it because they expect to make a living. they're bringing attention to their own causes and passions and interests. attention. >> i've learned a lot about the saskatchewan elections from reading your site. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. still to come, hugh grant says he's a victim of london's tabloid press. now a new york tv station used a close connection from an interview with the police commissioner. how do you know which ones to follow? the equity summary score consolidates the ratings of up to 10 independent research providers into a single score that's weighted based on how accurate they've been in the past. i'm howard spielberg of fidelity investments. the equity summary score is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. get 200 free trades today and explore your next investing idea. time now for the robin meade, time for the "media monitor." an exclusive interview for the fox station in new york. ray kelly sat down with two reporters after a man was arrested in an alleged bomb making plot. at the end of the nearly nine-minute interview came this exchange. >> this point in the interview we should point out if p you look at a family tree, if the genealogy chart, they would be able to determine that you and i are related. >> is this true? >> i believe father and son. all right. just so people know. >> what are you two doing for thanksgiving? >> the usual. >> what is that? >> lots of turkey, fall asleep on the floor, right? >> that's right. anchor greg kelly is the police commissioner's son. this should have been disclosed at the outset and not in the awkward and cute si way it was brought up at the end. but beyond that, couldn't wnyw simply asked a younger member of the kelly family to sit this one out, or, taking a wild guess, could greg kelly have been the one who used his connections to land this exclusive sitdown? known more for his movies and an unfortunate encounter with a prostitute, but hugh grant has emerged as the most prominent slayer of tabloid squeeze. he testified in front of parliament about the phone hacking scandal and delivered a command performance. >> i just think that there has been a section of our press that has been allowed to become toxic over the last 20 or 30 years. its main tactic being bullying and intimidation and blackmail. and i think that that needs a lot of courage to stand up to. >> granteed off on "the mail" on sunday, not owned by murdoch, for a story saying his relationship with his girlfriend was in trouble because, well, here, let him tell it. >> "the mail" on sunday ran an article february of 2007 saying that my relationship with my then girlfriend was on the rocks because of my persistent late-night flirtatious phone calls with a plummy-voiced studio executive from warner brothers. and it was a bizarre story. i cannot for the life of me think of any conceivable source for this story in "the mail" on sunday except those voice messages on my mobile telephone. >> grant says the woman with the sexy voice was actually the executive's assistant. "the mail" hit back hard, saying, quote, the information came from a freelance journalist who had been told by a source who was regularly speaking to the woman. what's more, mr. grant's allegations are mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media. if hugh grant doesn't have definitive proof in this case, but he's taken on london's tabloid press in a way no one else has. while he was bloody good in his movies, that in the end may stand as his most important work. finally, jimmy fallon seemed to have a good time interviewing michele bachmann the other night, but his show made a huge blunder even before she reached his couch. ♪ that, as the congresswoman later learned, was a 1985 song titled, quoting here, "lying ass bitch." how offensive is that? he said i'm so sorry about the intro mess. really hope she comes back. in an interview with fox's bill hemmer, bachmann accused n