Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512

That actually ties into this other question, because in looking over your earlier interviews, you said that you had at some other time, perhaps more towards the middle of a discussion to comment on the handling of the news section or the press section of Time and Newsweek. Do you have any comments to make on that?

I guess if I was indiscreet enough to open or to mention that subject, I might as well finish it. I think what I must have had in mind at the time I said that, is the feeling that in Time - and I'm referring now to Time, not to Newsweek - I had felt for years that there's been an animus toward the New York Times, perhaps psychologically growing out of the fact that Time relies so very, very heavily on the New York Times for its information. I don't say that in any humorous way. It's true they rely very heavily on the New York Times, and it's hard to see how Time magazine could come out without the New York Times. I believe they have as many as a couple of hundred subscriptions to the daily edition, in Time. Whether they still have that many or not, I'm not prepared to state, although they certainly did have something like that a few years ago.

I have felt for years that they showed a very distinct animus toward us, which as I say, I think one could explain almost psychologically. They're so dependent on us that they take this perhaps subconscious way of showing their independence. I have told two or three friends of mine in important executive positions in Time, Inc., of my feelings on this subject, very candidly and frankly, and more than once, including my old friend Hedley Donovan, who is editorial director, and more recently, Andrew Heiskell. They vigorously deny this, and we have friendly discussions about it and neither of us convinces the other. To me it's so clear that I can't understand how they can deny it. The Time magazine discussion of the