As long as you are a trusted source of news, the distribution channel doesn't matter as much. If we have to move to tablets or phones, that's fine.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think, because of the Internet, we're not looking at the very, very narrow channels for distribution that there used to be.
There are literally tens of thousands of very good content providers in the world that don't distribute their content through TV channels.
We have CBS.com, we have our stuff on iTunes. We feel the wave of the future is getting as much distribution as we can. We feel that we should be nonexclusive and get our content out there.
Television is more of a business. You can't take as many risks, because there's so many channels now, and the advertising's dropping.
I think where it's going is toward what the music industry is like, where channels will be considered more like labels that carry the type of TV show that you like, and then you'll consume them however you can. For example, I don't really watch Showtime, but I bought 'Homeland,' and I've been watching every episode on my iPad.
I know the rigors of network news. I didn't want to be jumping on an airplane twice a week. I didn't want to be tied to my pager and my cellphone.
You really can create a lot of value by putting content and distribution together, particularly if the content is cable content.
A basic rule of life for reporters is that you should spend your time talking with and learning about people who are not sending you press releases, rather than those who are.
We expanded the brand to include a whole line of apparel and accessories, but we quickly learned that it was not good to have one channel of distribution.
Our take was that if we are going to support our customers, we have to help them with video distribution, whether that is iPad, TV, small screen or large screen.