A great company in the media business needs visionary leaders, not a conglomerate structure headquartered in Columbus Circle that second guesses.

I enjoy the hunt much more than the “good life” after the victory.

Now the guy that got to the top, the CEO, would obviously be stupid to have a number two guy who was a lot smarter than he is. So by definition, since he's a survivor and he got to the top and he isn't that brilliant, his number two guy is going to always be a little worse than he is. So, as time goes on, it's anti-Darwinism, the survival of the un- fittest.

I believe there are and will be major opportunities to enhance Time Warner's value in future combinations.

Too often it's not the most creative guys or the smartest. Instead, it's the ones who are best at playing politics and soft-soaping their bosses. Boards don't like tough, abrasive guys.

And I'm convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you can work with the unions because the unions want to survive. If they are confronted simply with the question: "Do you want this company to survive or do you want it to be broken up?" they will listen. It's their livelihood.

The CEO is, by far, the most important decision for a company... The company is going to rise and fall with the CEO.