involving dozens and dozens and dozens of sources, it becomes almost inevitable, when there's so much writing on these important stories that i think really need to be heard that word leaks out. this happened in a number of prominent stories i worked on in the past month and, you know, that's okay. but i do think it's important for the public to distinguish between the secondary coverage of the story, often fraught with misinformation and the story itself, which is the product of many meticulous months of investigation. >> we need to try to distinguish between the different stories you've been doing. when you write about moonves or fager, you're not lumping them in with a predator like weinstein, are you? >> of course not. anyone who reads these stories can see readily we're careful not to draw any speculative