It never once brought us any regrets. We did it because we knew it was a good story. We knew we had the story. We knew it was a strong story. The consequences didn't really enter the picture.

SCHINDLER: If another Henry Hyde story walked in today, would you spend time beefing up security at your site?
WEIR: Not even a second will be given to the thought of security. I think we learned some lessons from how unprepared we were. We are certainly going to try to be more alert to some of the technical issues involved.

"I'm afraid, politics being the seamy business it is, we're going to have the opportunity to publish another Hyde-type story pretty soon."

But if your question is "Would you hesitate publishing out of security concerns?" Not even a second. And in terms of the conditional tense of your question, "If another Hyde story crossed your desk," I can tell you that 10 Hyde stories crossed my desk today and we're investigating these in good time. I'm afraid, politics being the seamy business it is, we're going to have the opportunity to publish another Hyde-type story pretty soon.

We don't really have time to get ready for the impact. Maybe this one will fall like a stone. Maybe this one will be bigger. Or maybe this one will be like the other day, when I was desperately trying to edit my news story on a Friday, and I said, "Where's everyone going?" It was the evacuation from the bomb threat. I said, "I really can't leave. I have to finish my editing." An editor has responsibility to move that copy before you run for the door. It took me an extra hour to clear out of the building. Fortunately, on that day it was a false alarm. But you know, if you have to go some way, I can't imagine a better way for an investigative reporter going than up in smoke.

"If you have to go some way, I can't imagine a better way for an investigative reporter going than up in smoke."

SCHINDLER: What kind of traffic did you get from the Hyde story?
WEIR: I can tell you, in general terms, the page views about tripled and topped out at a million a day. Over the course of the past weekend, we saw traffic to our site on the weekend as high as it used to be on weekdays. Weekend traffic used to be half of weekday, as it is on many, perhaps most, parts of the Web. So, all of a sudden we have taken this organization and doubled our cumulative traffic. We are still within one week of the big story. Our traffic is running very very high, double what it was. At this stage it looks to me like we have permanently expanded our audience, probably doubled it, with that one piece.

You know, the news business in and of itself isn't a business from a business perspective. News stories and controversy don't necessarily attract advertising support. The big-business issue is how many of those page views you can convert to paid-advertising page views. If you have a solid ... run-of-site philosophy, as opposed to a section-by-section sponsored philosophy, you can really benefit at a time like this.

For us at Salon, this will accelerate the pace toward profitability. Anytime you double your audience, you have a lot more eyeballs to play with as you're building your business.

"For us at Salon, this will accelerate the pace toward profitability."

It is helping us rethink our own basic editorial strategy and what kind of product we have. We're discovering how we can be competitive. Who would have guessed a small news organization, based in San Francisco, could lead all the mass media and the large media institutions all over the country, with much larger budgets and staffs and much longer traditions?

We thought that of ourselves, but that could have been a grandiose fantasy, until last week. Last week, we proved it to ourselves and the world. Now we are in the midst of thinking through how much we want to go in a direction to really become the daily, general newspaper of the Web. That may be a possibility for Salon, with our brand awareness, our track record, with the skill we have on staff, with our access to sources and the public expecting it of us.

C O N T I N U E D . . . 2 of 2
SCHINDLER: Do you hold out much hope of quality, original journalism on the Net being a profitable enterprise?
WEIR: We couldn't even get up and come to work in the morning if we didn't think that was a possibility. Now, I know, I am familiar with the arguments. I have been in the meetings, both as an employee and as a consultant, when people discussed repurposing vs. original content. I've got to tell you, although there are some baseline ways with repurposed content, and sort of dressing up a Reuters feed, you can sort of make it look like you have a news product, there is a real glass ceiling on the growth of that product.

Nobody, nobody, starting with Yahoo, has demonstrated that kind of approach will actually grow a fundamental news audience behind you, where people interact with the material, keep coming back, and feel they are getting the kind of added value that is going to create a product that lasts.

"Original content is very expensive to create."

On the other hand, original content is very expensive to create. When you try to get to quality, it is a very difficult business. I happen to have been a fan of the strategies used by digital news services. I like News.com, I like TechWeb, I like ZDNet, I like Wired News. I like the products that have been trying to start with the home base. Start with the fact that we have a developer audience on line, software purchasers, MIS people. ... We have technology-oriented folks online now who need information. That's one real strong area where there is original work going on, at all those sites and others.

Then you look at the financial reporting. That is a very interesting area to me. I think you'll see people are providing information online in the kind of window that traders need to make money. You know 20 minutes is a long time in that business. Getting a story out fast at [The Wall Street Journal] and elsewhere ... I think these people are moving the market. They are affecting things. People out there who work in that line of business are dependent on access to their information. They're doing original work.

In both cases, the credibility of all those sites depends not only on their originality, but their accuracy. Those are traditional journalistic values and virtues that need to be attained. They can't just repurpose, they can't just run shovelware, they can't just reprint press releases. They will not differentiate themselves, they will not survive, they will not thrive with that strategy, in my opinion.

We've reached the point in the development of the Web, at least, where we have a much broader general audience on hand than just developer and MIS folks and technology-oriented people.

That's why you see a site like Salon succeeding now. Now you have political people, general news people, mom and pop online. You have a much broader demographic.