Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600 of 824

Do you think having Newsweek there effected one way or another the quality of the TIME editorial product in the 1970s?

Oh certainly. Because if Newsweek suddenly improved the back of the book immensely, it was always at TIME's expense. People would say, “I think Newsweek is much better.” “Why do you think Newsweek is much better.” “Because of the back of the book.” So then TIME would concentrate its efforts on the back of the book, probably at the expense of the front of the book.

Anything else that you want to talk about, about TIME?

No.

Okay, why don't we go on to Fortune? Same kind of discussion, if you want to talk about the editors that were chosen, the publishers, any major decisions that were made, problems with it. In other words, just think about Fortune a little.

Fortune was a real anomaly because it started just as the Depression started. Everybody could have told you that that was the worst time in the world to start Fortune. In fact it turned out to be the best because suddenly people wanted to know, “Hey! What is business really about?,” rather than just making money in the stock market. “Why are all these things going haywire,” so on and so on. Fortune was created as a magnificent product. It's difficult to remember that in 1930 there wasn't anything that looked one-quarter