Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202 of 824

No. I'm sorry. No! Because, again, I say in reality the problem was television.

But then, in other words, your criticisms through the years of the editorial product also were not to the point. Is that correct? If the real enemy was TV?

It wasn't criticism of the editorial product as much as trying to find a way around TV, and I was saying, “I don't think we're producing a magazine that is doing the job that TV isn't doing.”

That's more or less LIFE.

That's more or less LIFE, but isn't last week's news. Now, admittedly, it's very difficult to figure out what that would be. And the answer is we never did. Had we figured it out, we'd still be around.

So, today, looking back, and with hindsight, you know--and if you had the creation board and you could pencil in a whole new story--you don't really know what you would do.

No. No, I think to the extent that any of us had any imagination, we had tried and more or less tested every possible thing that we could do. The magazine did keep changing. But we also didn't want to change too suddenly, because that's a very dangerous