Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261 of 512

talking about, actually had to go into the red - which, by the way, we never did, except perhaps for one quarter, and once during the big strike -

It was very narrow - for a while -

And in recent years, we've run a very narrow margin, and that's of course the reason for all the change. But my belief is that even if the Times had had to publish, within reason, in the red, again, a narrow margin, if we had to go into the red, without doing all this, I think it would have been worthwhile doing just that, by preserving our quality as a newspaper, going into the red, because we had a very profitable corporation to support the newspaper.

Now, the publisher felt and said, one of the very few times I ever had any discussion of this sort with him (extremely few times), he stated that he was determined that the New York Times newspaper was going to have to stand on its own feet. And that is a perfectly understandable, and in fact a worthy goal, I think that's fine, and he wasn't going to allow the Times as a newspaper to become dependent on the profits of the rest of the corporation, which is indeed very, very profitable - such parts of the Times Company as Family Circle, for instance, that supermarket magazine, are hugely profitable. The television station in Memphis, etc., etc., even the small newspapers that we got from Cowles are in their small way quite profitable, and so forth. And I think Punch has a real point on this, and if I were in his position, I can't say that I would have taken a different view. He felt that, no matter what happened, the Times had to stand on its own feet.