Previous | Next
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?
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
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help