Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187 of 512

seventies, for quite a long period, extreme price controls. So the answer is: yes, sure I was conscious. Very conscious, because he stated explicitly that he did not want to have the New York Times newspaper carried by the profits of the New York Times Company. This is a point which I have very grave doubts, as to the validity of, but anyway, that was his position.

First of all, I think that many people outside the company think of it as - these, the Golf Digest and Family Circle and so forth - as sort of drawing the wagons up around the original institution to protect it, rather than to make it turn a profit.

Well, I guess that all those extraneous publications really are the ones on which the profitability of the New York Times Corporation, in the last few years, until this last year, has depended. It's true that the New York Times newspaper has not been in the red, except for one quarter, but I mean - it hasn't really been in the red any year, but its profit margin has been extremely thin. One recent year, I think, it was down to only 1 or 2 percent, something like that. And the difference in viewpoint would be that, whereas the publisher feels that the New York Times newspaper must show a profit, not go into the red, some of us, like me, feel that that's a very worthy aim, but it's a worthy aim only if, in the effort to make it profitable, one doesn't affect the quality of the paper. And one does, fortunately, have the possibility or relying for the continuing publication of the paper on the profits of the rest of the New York Times Corporation.