It's strange that the newspapers don't see a connection between their false revelations about my private life and my need for seclusion and security.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I have been fiercely private, in part because I could never understand how a journalist could be otherwise. I was also the mother of small children, and security concerns were paramount.
I never thought my private life would be newsworthy.
Despite the barrage of information about me that is publicly available, I live a surprisingly private and anonymous life.
I tried to keep it secret, but the story got into the newspapers. It was more difficult for my family, who couldn't understand why the media wouldn't leave me in peace.
Most of the press is sent to my publicist so I do see most of what is written about me.
Newspapers that are truly independent, like The Washington Post, can still aggressively investigate anyone or anything with no holds barred.
Ever since Woodward and Bernstein, there's sort of been an epidemic of confidential sources in Washington, in particular where people will actually - when you call them up on the phone, they'll say, 'This is off the record,' or, 'This is on background,' or they don't even wait for you to say anything.
All the legal action I've taken against newspapers has had a massively positive effect on my life and achieved exactly what I wanted, which is privacy and non-harassment.
I'm not on Twitter, and I don't read the papers day to day, so I am somewhat protected. There's this weird separation between your private and public persona.
I used to have trust with reporters. Give them scoops. Those were the old days. It's very strange, when you give a story and it doesn't come out the right way.
No opposing quotes found.