Time Warner Cable v. New York CityTime Warner Cable of New York City is suing New York City to prevent it from putting Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network on the Time Warner cable channels set aside for public access programming. Time Warner vice chairman and CNN founder Ted Turner was deposed in the case October 18, 1996. During the course of his testimony, he called Murdoch a "pretty slimy character" and, under questioning, elaborated on his comparison of the News Corp. chief to "the late Fuhrer" and "all dictators." [Editor’s Note: Court TV is an affiliate of Time Warner.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TIME WARNER CABLE OF NEW YORK CITY, a division of TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., PARAGON COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, vs . THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. -and- BLOOMBERG, L.P., Defendant-Intervenor. VOLUME I PAGES 1-135 CONFIDENTIAL PORTION BOUND SEPARATELY Deposition of TED TURNER, held at the offices of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10019, commencing at 11:30 A.M., Friday, October 18, 1996, before TAMMEY M. PASTOR, RPR. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: FOR PLAINTIFFS: CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE BY: ROBERT D. JOFFE, ESQ. AND: CHRISTOPHER P. BOGART, ESQ. Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 -AND- TIME WARNER CABLE BY: RICHARD M. HIRSCH, ESQ. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10020 -AND- TURNER BROADCASTING SYSIEM, INC. BY: STEVEN W. KORN, ESQ. One CNN Center Box 15366 Atlanta, Georgia 30348 FOR DEFENDANT: NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT BY: DAVID BRUCE GOLDIN, ESQ. AND: SHARI M. GOODSTEIN, ESQ. AND: KATHERINE WINNINGHAM, ESQ. 100 Church Street New York, New York 1000 FOR BLOOMBERG, L.P.: FRANKFURT, GARBUS, KLEIN & SELZ, P.C. BY: MARTIN GARBUS, ESQ. AND: EDWARD HERNSTADT AND: EDWARD H. ROSENTHAL 488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the respective parties herein, that the sealing and filing of the within deposition be waived. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this deposition may be signed and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer an oath with the same force and effect as if signed and sworn to before the officer before whom said deposition is taken. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all objections, except as to form, are reserved to the time of trial. TED TURNER having been first duly sworn by TAMMEY M. PASTOR, RPR, a Notary Public within and for the State of New York, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Mr. Turner, would you tell me briefly what your position is at Time Warner. A. At the moment I think my title is vice chairman. And with the responsibilities for the cable networks divisions, primarily, but with a few things that are related to it. Q. Can you tell me what those things are? A. New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Cinema and Turner Pictures. I think, to the best of my recollection, everything else is directly related to the cable networks. Q. When you say those are your responsibilities at the moment, have those responsibilities changed recently? A. Well, they have, yes, because we only merged with Time Warner, I think, last week. It has been many months that it was announced that I was going to have these responsibilities, but it didn't officially kick in. I was president and chairman of Turner Broadcasting until, I think it was last week when we closed the merger. Q. Did you have any responsibilities with respect to Time Warner prior to last week? A. No. Q. Did you have any involvement with Time Warner's cable programming decisions before last week? MR. JOFFE: When you say Time Warner cable's programming, you mean Time Warner "Cable's" programming decisions? MR. GOLDIN: Actually I said Time Warner's cable programming decisions. MR. JOFFE: The problem is "cable programming” may mean the pogram arm -- MR. GOLDIN: I understand. MR. JOFFE: -- or you may be talking about the cable operations. I guess -- THE WITNESS: Which one are you talking about? Are you talking about both? BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. I was talking about Time Warner's cable programming decisions. MR. JOFFE: Prior to the merger, you are asking him? MR. GOLDIN: Before last week. THE WITNESS: What cable programming decisions? BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. If you weren't involved in any cable programming -- A. I wasn't involved in any decisions. There were numerous discussions on various subjects that occurred during the past year. And they intensified somewhat, such discussions as cutbacks at Turner Broadcasting, reduced overhead discussions, and so forth. But nothing of any consequence was implemented until after the merger was actually completed, because there is always a chance that something could occur that the merger wouldn't go through. Q. When you say decisions such as cutbacks, can you explain precisely what you are talking about? A. We had several study groups of executives from Turner and Time Warner that met several times, particularly during the last 60 days, to set up a strategy for how we'd operate the company after the merger went through. And I did, on my own volition, I made a couple of suggestions vis-a-vis the programming on Time Warner Cable as far as the implementation of the Federal Communications compromise that said that Time Warner Cable would have to carry under certain agreements a competing news channel. As you will see later, basically my suggestions weren't followed at all. But I didn't have any direct authority to do anything. I just made an unsolicited suggestion or two. MR. JOFFE: I think the witness said Federal Communications Commission, but I am sure he meant Federal Trade Commission. THE WITNESS: Absolutely. I am sorry. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Okay. What was the period of time during which those meetings were taking place? A. The meetings I spoke of earlier? Q. Yes. A. I cannot remember when they started. But I think it was in the last couple months. It was as we got -- when we finally got the Federal Trade Commission okay. I can't remember when that was. The whole thing has been kind of like a nightmare. Q. Roughly speaking, these meetings have been since August? A. I told you, I have answered the question. Q. Okay. In addition to serving as vice chairman of Time Warner, do you have any ownership interest in Time Warner? A. Yes. Q. What is that interest? A. It is approximately, to the best of my recollection, about a 9 percent economic interest. Q. Has that interest changed in the past several months? A. Well, it has because the merger didn't take place, I don't think, to the best of my recollection -- was it last week? MR. JOFFE: October 10, yes. THE WITNESS: I can't remember if that- was last week or the week before. But since October, I didn't have any stock in Time Warner until October 10th. So, that is the change that was Turner Broadcasting ceased to be on October 10th. My shares which were in Turner Broadcasting became Time Warner shares just last week. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Did Time Warner have an interest in Turner Broadcasting prior to last week? A. Yes, they did. Q. What was that interest? A. I think it was approximately, to the best of my recollection, about 18 percent of our common stock was held by them. And had been for a number of years. Q. Was there any other ownership interest in Turner besides that held by Time Warner? A. Yes. 100 percent ownership was owned by various people. I think most recently my ownership interest, and this includes not just me personally, but my foundation, my children's trusts, kind of represented, it was close to 24 percent. Q. Now you sit on the board of Time Warner; is that correct? A. As of October 10th. Q. Prior to that had you had a seat -- A. Actually, I don't know that is absolutely true. I think maybe I have to get elected to the board officially at the meeting in November. I am not positive. I know that the other director is not going to be officially a director. I don't know whether I am a director or not. Q. It is your expectation if you are not currently a director you will become one? A. That's right. Q. Had you previously sat on Time Warner's board? A. Never. Q. You said a moment ago as I understood your testimony, correct me if I am wrong, during the course of the meetings that you had just described, you made a recommendation with respect to carriage of the news channel; is that correct? A. Right. Q. What was that recommendation? A. The recommendation in general, and I spoke to Joe Collins, was that from the vantage point of where I stood with responsibility for CNN, that I thought that, I recommended that he go as slowly as possible. At least wait until the merger was consummated because things were happening so quickly on this. And I recommended he go as slowly as possible in adding other news channels to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's minimum requirements. And my personal recommendation was that when he saw, who was getting the most coverage on the other systems around the country between General Electric and News Corp., that he split the business between them. That was my recommendation. Of course, it wasn't followed at all. Q. Who is Joe Collins? A. Joe Collins is the head of the cable systems, the Time Warner Cable Systems. Time Warner Entertainment. I don't understand the structure exactly. Because some of the systems are owned by Time Warner by themselves. Some are owned in a joint venture that U.S. West has a minority interest in. Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Collins would be the person who would be making the decision about what news channel to carry? A. He is the head man. I mean I don't know who made the decisions. But I would assume that he would be involved with them. He was the only person at the cable systems, to the best of my recollection, that I spoke to about it. I also spoke with Mr. Levin about it on several occasions. I don't remember exactly when. Because it was -- it is a very big deal. Q. Who is Mr. Levin? A. Mr. Levin is president and chairman of Time Warner. Q. When did you make your recommendation to Mr. Collins? A. I don't recall. Q. Can you tell me roughly? A. It was shortly before, it was just, I think within five, six, seven days before the announcement was made that they had decided to go with General Electric and Microsoft. Q. When did you discuss these questions with Mr. Levin? A. It was about the same time that I discussed them with Mr. Collins. Might have been a little bit, a little after. I don't remember exactly. Q. Where did you have your conversations with Mr. Levin? A. I don't recall. I think it was a topic that we discussed on two or three different occasions over a several week period of time. Q. Did that include a conversation or conversations at your ranch in Montana? A. I can't recall. He has been to Montana a couple, three times. We were in almost daily contact for several months. We have conversations on many, many different subjects. I can't recall when exactly I had conversations with him. Q. Would your conversations on this topic with Mr. Levin have been on or around August 3Oth of this year? A. It would be easy enough to find out when the announcement was made that Time Warner Cable had chosen, or had decided to go make a rather extensive agreement with General Electric and Microsoft's news service. But, as I understood it, this did not necessarily preclude them doing something with Murdoch at some point in the future. I clearly have no influence over what their decisions are. Even though I would like to have, I clearly don't have. Q. Why do you say you have no influence over their decisions? A. Because the recommendation that I made to them, unsolicited recommendation I made to them was absolutely rejected out of hand. Q. Given your current responsibilities at Time Warner, does it remain true today in your understanding that you have no influence over Time Warner's decisions concerning cable programming? A. Certainly not in New York. I just signed an affidavit to that effect. And that was the only suggestion that I have made to them personally that I can think of. I mean in past years we have done a lot of business with them, like we have with all cable systems with our networks like CNN and TNT and the Cartoon Network. I am constantly out beating the drums to try to get cable systems to carry our networks. I have never gone to the extent that Mr. Murdoch did on this. You know -- MR. GARBUS: I came in a little late. Is that affidavit an exhibit? Is it relevant to this proceeding? Should it be marked? MR. JOFFE: It is not an exhibit. MR. GARBUS: I ask it be marked if Mr. Turner -- MR. JOFFE: Mr. Garbus, you are interrupting. This document. Has nothing to do with -- MR. GARBUS: If the witness refers to it, it should be marked. MR. JOFFE: Fine. You can ask. I am not marking it. MR. GOLDIN: Let me ask one thing. Had you completed your answer? THE WITNESS: Have I done what? BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Have you completed your answer to that question? MR. JOFFE: Let me consult with the witness. Then you can read back the question and answer. MR. GOLDIN: Since I think we may be in the midst of the answer, I ask you either hold the consultation or explain why you see the need to consult. MR. JOFFE: I will be happy to hold it. (The record was read as requested.) THE WITNESS: That was kind of an afterthought. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. You have completed your answer? A. Yes, absolutely. Q. Can you tell me what you meant by the reference to the extent Mr. Murdoch has gone to? A. Well, you know, he has just started a media war. In my opinion, what I know about cable -- I am chairman of the National Cable Television Association this year, I have been on the board for years -- cable got rapped many years ago for paying off politicians. It is something I have never done, even though we make minor contributions to campaigns, but it is a weapon that Mr. Murdoch uses all the time all over the world. I was just appalled that he bought the government of New York City. Q. What is the basis for your belief? A. His wife works for them. He made lots of contributions. His newspapers and television stations, as I read in The Daily News, strongly endorsed the Republican administration prior to the last election. Q. What contributions do you believe Mr. Murdoch has made? A. I read that he had contributed $100,000 to the Republican Party of New York. Q. Anything else? A. I know what he tried to do with Newt Gingrich to pay him $7 million for a book deal like he did the daughter of the head of China's government. Doing the same thing, as I understand it, in India, buying political favors for his company by making contributions in book deals, in any way he can, to shovel money to willing politicians. Q. Is it your belief that those acts of Mr. Murdoch's are improper? A. Yes. By my standards they are improper. You bet. Q. Is it your belief they are illegal? A. I don't know. I am not a lawyer. Q. But you believe they might be illegal? A. I don't know. Q. As a nonlawyer, do you have any view as to whether they might be illegal? A. I don't, as far as whether they are legal or not. But there are a lot of things that are wrong, whether they are legal or not. In my opinion. Q. Does your belief that Mr. Murdoch has done these things affect your view of Mr. Murdoch as a businessman? A. Yes, it does. Q. How so? A. I have no respect for him. I think he is a very dangerous person. Q. Dangerous in what respect? A. Dangerous to the extent that he uses the news media to advance his own personal position, mainly. He does so shamelessly. And he uses the power of the media to further his own personal wealth and power, rather than for the good of the communities which he is supposed to serve. Q. In what respects do you believe that Mr. Murdoch does those things? A. In what respect? I just said so. Q. In what respect does he use the media to advance his own personal interest? A. Well, he backs governments that are friendly to aggrandize his position. A perfect example: It has been very widely reported he was backing Maggie Thatcher in Britain, and as a result, being given virtual monopoly on satellite television there. A complete monopoly. Q. You believe he got that monopoly as a result of his backing the Thatcher government? A. It is pretty hard to figure which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Q. You mentioned before that you or your company had given minor contributions to campaigns. Were you referring to Turner, Time Warner or both? A. We have a, Turner Broadcasting had a PAC that usually contributed no more than I think $1,000 to any candidate. Then I make personal contributions, almost never more than $1,000. I can't recall ever personally contributing over $1,000. Which is the, I think the federal limit for giving to any one particular candidate. Q. Have you ever given a contribution to any political candidates whose views or actions you believed were inimical to the interests of Turner Broadcasting? A. Absolutely. Q. In what instances? A. Many, many instances. MR. JOFFE: Wait a second. I interrupt and instruct the witness. We have gone way far afield of any issue that was raised by the city or Bloomberg in its request for discovery. Now, I am not contesting that some of these issues were raised here at the deposition, but they are nowhere within the bounds of anything the judge said was permissible. Who Mr. Turner makes his contributions to is just beyond the scope of this deposition. MR. GOLDIN: Well, as you point out yourself, the issues were raised by Mr. Turner in his responses. And in his characterizations of Mr. Murdoch. THE WITNESS: Well, you asked me about it. MR. JOFFE: Wait a second, David, let me finish my statement. Then you can say whatever you want. MR. GOLDIN: I thought you were done. Sorry. MR. JOFFE: We are not seeking affirmatively to put in an affidavit from Mr. Turner. It is you who want this deposition for discovery. It seems to me you've got to seek relevant information in it, or as relevant, as close to relevant as you can get. Merely because Mr. Turner's answer may go off on some other area does not entitle you to go follow that area as far as your heart's content. It just isn't relevant to this case. It is an abuse. MR. GOLDIN: Have you finished your statement? MR. JOFFE: Yes. MR. GOLDIN: We have been informed that you are unilaterally limiting this deposition to 2:30 this afternoon. At that time the witness has to leave. I understand the witness' scheduling constraints. I don't believe that you have the authority on your own to advise us, in light of the judge's order there is only a certain amount of time during which we must depose this witness. Nonetheless, we will attempt to accommodate. I don't think that it is advantageous use of the time for us to have lengthy debates about the proper contours of the deposition. I certainly don't think it is a proper use of the time, and I certainly would not want to abuse Mr. Turner's courtesy in appearing here today by having the witness wait while we call the judge and debate the issues before her, though I think such a discussion at some point may become appropriate. I don't believe under the federal rules and under the local rules of this court that it is appropriate, regardless of your concerns about relevancy, to instruct the witness at this time. I do not believe that that is a proper basis for an instruction not to answer a question. MR. JOFFE: Then call the judge. MR. GOLDIN: I am not going to do that at this juncture. I will put you on notice now that if we are unable to complete this deposition within the- time that you have set forth, and if there is any controversy about resuming it, we will at that time take up the issue, and that we reserve our rights with respect to any other remedy. Including an appropriate motion for sanctions. MR. GARBUS: I just want to make clear also, I intend to ask the witness about 30 minutes of questions. I would ask that time be made available to me. I have a letter putting that request in writing. MR. JOFFE: I assume you will not instruct any of your witnesses not to answer, either. Proceed. MR. GOLDIN: I am not going to respond to that at this point. I will not respond to any further instructions. I don't think it is appropriate for us to have this debate. I think we should proceed with questions of Mr. Turner and his responses thereto. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Has Turner Broadcasting System through its PAC or otherwise made contributions to candidates whose positions or actions are inimical to its interest? MR. JOFFE: Never mind. I will instruct the witness not to answer. ** COUNSEL DIRECTS WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Mr. Turner, you stated earlier that you had made a recommendation or series of recommendations to Mr. Levin about the subject of carrying a news channel. Can you tell me what your recommendation to Mr. Levin was? A. I told him basically the same thing that I mentioned to Mr. Collins. In my opinion -- this is the best of my recollection, in my opinion that we should go as slowly as possible. And at the end of the day, probably end up splitting the business. But that was it. Q. Had Mr. Collins solicited your advice or counsel on this question? Were you providing it unsolicited? A. I was providing it unsolicited. Q. How about Mr. Levin, had he asked you for your advice? A. I don't think so. I think it was unsolicited in this case, too, to the best of my recollection. Q. When you say it was your advice to split the business, did you mean that some systems would carry Fox and some would carry MSNBC or that some would carry both or some other kind of combination? A. I never got specific about it. Q. What was Mr. Levin's reaction to your recommendation? If any? A. There wasn't -- to the best of my recollection there was not a strong reaction one way or another. I think he basically said that he was leaving it up to the cable division to decide how it was going to be done. Q. That was Mr. Collins' division? A. That's right. But I am not absolutely certain about that. Q. If Mr. Levin had not asked for your advice, why were you providing it to him? A. Well, I am responsible for the profitability and the health of our cable programming assets. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure when you have Microsoft and General Electric on one side and News Corp. on the other coming at you, that that can have a major effect on your ratings and volume and profitability. Q. You're talking now about the vantage point of CNN? A. Yes. Q. What was your expectation about the effect that those competitors might have on CNN? A. Well, to some degree, it is fear of the unknown. But not completely, because in our second year of existence we had a combination of ABC and Westinghouse on another news channel against us when we were just getting off the ground before we had achieved profitability by a number of years. It cost us about $150 million, by my estimate, in additional losses, it came very close to bankrupting the company. Q. When you say "we" at this point you are talking about CNN? A. Turner. Q. Which at that point was operating CNN? A. That was a division. Q. Roughly speaking, when was this second year? A. We started 1980, I think they started around 1982. Q. What was the station or what was the channel, what were the channels that ABC Westinghouse were throwing at you? A. They started a 24-hour news service called Satellite News Channel. It was a joint venture between the two of them similar to the joint venture that Microsoft and NBC, General Electric did. Q. So you had a concern that you might be facing a similar kind of threat from MSNBC and Fox? A. Well, it is absolutely. Q. That was why you raised the issue of carrying news channel with Mr. Levin? A. You know, business is competition. As long as you play within the rules of the game - - I have always played within the rules of the game, as far- as I know, and to the best of my ability, and there are lots of rules because we are all over the world, you know -- you try and win. Q. At the time of your conversations with Mr. Levin, the rules of the game, as you understood them, included complying with the FTC order while at the same time affording CNN as much protection as possible? A. Absolutely. Q. It was your view that the recommendation you were making to Mr. Levin to go slow would afford CNN as much protection as could be obtained? A. Well, clearly they had signed the agreement with the government that they were going to carry an additional news channel. I mean, the thought never came up. I never read the exact document, but I was given to believe or somehow the belief reached me that Bloomberg was not even an alternative. They had to pick either News Corp. or NBC's news. That sounded to me extremely unfair because there are other news services out there. But Mr. Bloomberg is being one and the BBC, the British have a news service that is available by satellite here. It hasn't been picked up on by many people like Mr. Bloomberg's. I may be wrong about that. Maybe Mr. Bloomberg's news service was a viable service. We never even sat down and discussed it. I mean, Mr. Collins and his people made the decision clearly not paying any attention at all to my thought. Which is we should go slowly, review all our alternatives and not leap before we look. Q. Your recommendation, you say review all alternatives, would be to include alternatives apart from MSNBC and Fox? A. I didn't even know they were alternatives, that they were legal or viable. I don't even know to this day. But I was given to understand that it had to be one or the other, between the two I mentioned, General Electric and Microsoft and Newscorp's. I am not certain that that is the case at this point. One or the other. But it had to be -- they named them by name -- MR. JOFFE: No. THE WITNESS: Why couldn't Mr. Bloomberg's service - MR. JOFFE: It doesn't fit the description. THE WITNESS: What do you mean? It is a 24-hour news service. So is the BBC. MR. GOLDIN: I have to log an objection. MR. JOFFE: You can go ahead with your question. MR. GOLDIN: We have a point where counsel and the witness are engaging in a dialogue. MR. GARBUS: I think saying a good word for Bloomberg is appropriate. THE WITNESS: I am not saying whether it is a good word or not. At least you were discriminated against. MR. GARBUS: There you go. MR. GOLDIN: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Are you done with that response? MR. JOFFE: Let me make a short statement, on the record. Feel free to get a cup of coffee. The FTC decree required that one news service be put on and it described the characteristics of those -- MR. GARBUS: What is the purpose of this lecture? MR. JOFFE: The purpose is to try to keep the record clear. MR. GARBUS: No. No. No. MR. JOFFE: Can you wait, Mr. Garbus -- MR. GARBUS: You don't clarify a record. MR. JOFFE: You can make that statement when I am done. MR. GARBUS: I can say it now. You don't make a record when your witness is being asked questions. I object to it. MR. JOFFE: Okay. Your objection is noted. MR. GARBUS: Mr. Turner is a very competent witness. A very bright man who achieved some things in his life. MR. JOFFE: Flattery will get you nowhere, Mr. Garbus. MR. GOLDIN: Are we done? MR. JOFFE: No. MR. GOLDIN: Mr. Joffe, let me say, I do think that Mr. Garbus is right to the extent if you need to clarify the record, it does not need to be done now in the midst of the examination. Why don't you wait until the end of the day. If you feel there is something to be added, put it on then. MR. JOFFE: I will accept your suggestion. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Mr. Turner, what was the basis for your understanding it had to be either MSNBC or Fox? A. I don't remember. Q. Did somebody tell you that? A. I don't remember. Q. Do you remember when you learned the choice was between those two? A. No. No. No. Q. Did you think that that was an appropriate limitation to make the choice only between those two? A. I don't. Q. Why not? A. Well, because what criteria, first of all, I don't even know if it was, but it just seems like the government -- I didn't think it was right and a lot of other people didn't either, to agree to that with the Federal Trade Commission. I never heard of anything like that ever happening before. And two of the five FTC commissioners thought it was outrageous, too, or thought it was wrong, and later on after the transaction was completed, spoke out against it. So it was a very controversial provision in the first place. If it favored two speakers over other speakers, and there are at least three other news channels out there of which Mr. Bloomberg's, the BBC is one, then there is one been kicking around for years called All News Channel that is owned I think by Mr. Hubbard and Viacom. That that would -- how they got, you know, favored over those other three news channels, I thought was outrageous. I never got around, never had the time to get into it and look at it. Because I clearly had no power to influence events at Time Warner Cable. That's it. Q. Okay. Just so it is clear, you now do have that power; is that correct? A. No, I don't. Q. You still can't influence events at Time Warner Cable? A. No, I can't. Q. You can only influence Time Warner's cable programming decisions; is that correct? A. The area that I am responsible for, and clearly even there, I have to report to Gerry Levin and perhaps -- I've never been to a board meeting, so right now I couldn't do anything, change any policies that are currently in place without getting approval for it. I am an employee. Q. Do you find that Mr. Levin often rejects your suggestions? A. He rejects them from time to time. Q. As an employee do you find it gives you any advantage to have a 9 percent ownership share in the corporation in getting your suggestions accepted? A. Well, you would think that it should have some weight, but Mr. Bronfman of Seagram's owns 15 percent and couldn't even get in the door. Q. Did you tell Mr. Levin what the thinking was behind your recommendation on how to proceed with the decision on carrying a news channel? A. Would you repeat that question. Q. Did you tell Mr. Levin why you were recommending a go-slow approach? A. I don't remember the details. He didn't seem to be that interested in what I thought, to tell you the truth, on this particular matter. Q. Was he interested in your thinking about other matters? A. To some degree. Q. During the time that you were discussing with him the issue of news channel carriage, what matters that you expressed a view on was he interested in? A. I told you earlier, the company is very complex and very large. Not just to mention the areas that I deal in. And we discussed a number of subjects, and a great deal of it, very little of it was decision-making. It was mostly just by way of informing me about the way things were going and me trying to do the same with him so that we had a better understanding of how the various areas that we were responsible for were working. Q. Was your recommendation of a go-slow approach to selecting a news channel casual, off the top of your head suggestion or something you had given some thought, reflection to? A. Well, I normally give some thought and reflection to everything I say. It might be brief. But I didn't really know -- had I had some real responsibility in the area, I would have spent more time studying the situation. But since I had -- basically I think this decision was made, to the best of my recollection, even before the merger, before the merger closed. And I never, even though, had any serious input what Time Warner did in any of its areas, they owned 18 percent of me. I didn't own 18 percent of them. Not only did they own 18 percent of me, they also had a veto as a side agreement. I have nothing like that. I am just a minority shareholder in this company. (The following pages, 40-49 are Confidential and bound separately.) (Confidential portion of the deposition of TED TURNER was concluded at this point and the deposition continues on Page 51.) (Pages, 40-49, have been designated Confidential and are bound separately. At this point the deposition of TED TURNER continues.) BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. You testified a moment ago about the decision to proceed with carrying MSNBC as the news channel. A. That I did what? Q. About the decision to carry MSNBC. A. What about it? Q. You testified about it. A. I am a little hard of hearing. Q. Sorry, I will speak up. A. You are doing well. Q. I will see if I can keep it up. Was that decision made at some point before it was announced? A. To the best of my recollection, yes. Q. When was the decision made? A. About four, five, six days before it was announced, to the best of my recollection. Several days. Q. How did you hear about the decision? A. I can't remember whether Mr. Levin mentioned it to me or whether Joe Collins called me. But I did speak to Joe Collins. I might have wanted to get it straight from him. I don't remember how I learned about it. But the main conversation was with Mr. Collins on the telephone, not face to face. It didn't last but a couple of minutes. He confirmed that they had made a deal with MSNBC and that they were going to announce it at some point in the future not too distant. I expressed my disappointment, but that was it. Q. Why did you tell Mr. Collins you were disappointed? A. Because I thought -- I wasn't privy to the conversations either with Mr. Murdoch, or with the people at MSNBC. I don't even know who we met with with them. I learned, most of this I learned about in reading about it. So, I don't know what the background thought processes were between why one was chosen over the other. I didn't have input into it. I wasn't asked. My suggestions weren't solicited. They were not paid attention to. Q. Well, did you ask Mr. Collins what the thought processes were? A. Not really, because the decision had been made. Q. Were you interested to know why it had been made? A. I guess I did ask him. He gave me a very brief explanation. Q. What did he say? A. To the best of my recollection he said that they needed retransmission consent on some news stations that NBC had just purchased. And they already had retransmission consent from Mr. Murdoch and didn't need to make a deal with him right now. He said they weren't precluded from making a deal with Murdoch at some point in the future, but for the time being they were going to go with MSNBC. And he also said that one reason for that is that NBC already had a channel for a news talk channel, I can't remember whether it was news talk, it had a different name, but they were just changing over from one, from the news talk format to more of a hard news reporting format. Most of the cable operators, I think, in fact I think all of them went along with that format, format change. NBC started with an advantage, because they already had a channel on that was sort of news related. They just converted it over to this other channel. Which gave them an advantage because they already were on a lot of systems. Q. Apart from this conversation with Mr. Collins, did you ever discuss with anybody else at Time Warner why MSNBC was selected? A. Not to my recollection. Q. Given your current responsibilities at Time Warner, is the decision about carrying another news channel, if that were to be now, within your area of responsibility? A. No. Q. It would still be Mr. Collins' responsibility? A. Mr. Collins and whoever, you know, whoever else is part of his brain trust, I guess. Q. To whom does Mr. Collins report? A. I think he reports, to the best of my knowledge, he reports to a board that has representatives from U.S. West on it. I don't even know who represents Time Warner there, whether it is Mr. Levin or somebody else. Q. Over what cable programming decisions do you have authority? A. I have authority for day-to-day operations of the current cable networks. Q. That includes CNN? A. That's right. Q. It includes Headline News? A. Yes. Q. Have you continued to make your recommendation that Time Warner consider, as you put it before, I think it was splitting the baby; that is, carrying Fox as well as MSNBC? A. Would you repeat that please. Q. Have you continued to recommend that Time Warner consider carrying Fox along with MSNBC? A. No. Because once the decision was made a couple weeks ago to go with MSNBC and I haven't -- I have just been aware of basically what has happened, the dispute with Mr. Murdoch and the lawsuits and so forth. They just come very quickly. Since they didn't pay any attention to me before, I don't know why they would now. Q. What is your recommendation now? MR. JOFFE: Wait a second. THE WITNESS: I don't have a recommendation. MR. JOFFE: Fine. The question was obviously improper. MR. GOLDIN: Thanks, Mr. Joffe. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. CNN and Headline News are all news programs; is that correct? A. We call them that. But there is -- on CNN there are talk shows and news of fashion and so forth. News can be broadly defined. There is all sort of different kinds of news, too. Q. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want to have a term that is generally accepted. Is all news a fair characterization for those two channels? A. That is normally what they are referred to as. Q. I believe, again I don't want to mischaracterize, that you have described some other channels today as also being all news channels? A. Or at least in the generally accepted definition, broad definition. Q. That would include MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Bloomberg, and then I believe you had mentioned BBC and -- A. BBC, right. And in my opinion if you go a little further afield, clearly The Weather Channel is news. And all three of the major network affiliates and even a lot of the independent stations like Mr. Murdoch's here in New York run a lot of news, you know. So C-Span is news about Congress. I mean -- you've got CNBC, which is news about business with a lot of other news. Then there is some others as well. E!, which is entertainment news. Q. Confining ourselves to whatever set of programs you feel comfortable calling all news programs, would you agree with the characterization in general those programs are informative? A. That's what news is certainly supposed to be. Q. Would you agree they are educational? A. Not necessarily. No. Q. Would you say that CNN in general is educational? A. No. Q. Would you describe any of the all news programs we just mentioned as being educational? A. No. Q. Would you agree that they can inform the voting electorate? A. Certainly they can. Q. Would you agree that they promote the exchange of ideas? A. Sometimes. Q. Would you agree that they inform viewers about the government? A. Sometimes. Q. Would you say that CNN in particular informs viewers about the government? A. Sometimes. Q. Would you say that CNN in particular can inform the electorate? A. Sometimes. Q. Are you familiar with the concept of a public access educational and governmental channel also known as a PEG? A. Yes. Q. Has CNN ever been carried on a PEG channel, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Has Headline News ever been carried on a PEG channel, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Has any Turner programming been carried on a PEG channel, to your knowledge? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Can you explain to me how CNN generates revenues? A. From two separate sources -- well, from a number of sources, but its main revenue source is advertising and subscription fees. Q. What do you mean by subscription fees? A. We collect or try to collect a small amount, a few cents each month per subscriber from the cable operators or satellite distributors that distribute our programming. Q. In order to obtain subscription fees it is necessary that a service be carried on a commercial channel; is that correct? That is not on a PEG channel? A. Actually Headline News we don't charge anything for unless it is carried by itself. In fact, we give it away and reduce the fee for CNN for carrying Headline News. Q. Does Headline News carry advertising? A. Yes, it does. Q. So it generates revenues in that way? A. Some revenues, right. Q. Insofar as it generates revenues. Is it correct, though, that running a service on a PEG channel would not generate revenues? A. It would depend. If it had advertising in it, it could. A PEG channel is a channel -- Q. What is your understanding as to why Time Warner Cable does not want to have New York City run the Fox News Channel on a New York City PEG channel? MR. JOFFE: Objection. You haven't asked the witness whether he has any understanding on this issue. MR. GOLDIN: Well, I would think that is subsumed in the same question. MR. JOFFE: He said he has no responsibility for this area. It seems to me -- MR. GOLDIN: I think you made the point. I will rephrase the question. MR. JOFFE: It seems it lacks foundation. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Do you have any understanding as to why Time Warner does not want, Time Warner Cable of New York City, does not want to have New York City run the Fox News, carry the Fox News Channel on its PEG station? A. Well, from what I have read, and I have read quite a bit about it, it seems to me that the reason is quite clear; that it is improper and illegal. Q. What have you read? A. I have read the articles in all three New York newspapers. That has been my primary source of information. Q. Have you discussed the subject with anyone? A. I have heard peripherally some of the discussions that have taken place in various places. It has been a rather widely reported situation. MR. GOLDIN: Let's take a couple minutes. (Recess taken.) BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Have you discussed the matter with anybody at Time Warner? A. I have heard some of the discussions. That was primarily at Time Warner. Q. What have you heard in those discussions? A. Nothing any different than what has been reported in the press. Q. What is your understanding as to why there is some impropriety or illegality in the idea of running Fox News on the PEG station? A. It is pretty damned obvious that there are dozens of programmers who have big bases of operations here in New York who have been trying to get on the Time Warner system for years. Including Mr. Bloomberg's operation. And the only difference is their wife of the mayor doesn't work for them. Maybe they didn't endorse the current administration at election time and hadn't made such large contributions. I mean, it is outrageous what's happened here, in my opinion. Without precedent. That I have ever seen. Q. It is your understanding the reason why the city wants to carry Fox News is because the mayor's wife is employed - A. What? Q. Is it your understanding the reason the city wants to carry Fox News is because of the employment of the mayor's wife and Mr. Murdoch's political contributions? A. And God knows what else Murdoch has done to get the mayor in his pocket. Q. What is your belief as to the other things Mr. Murdoch has done? A. I don't know. Murdoch is a pretty slimy character. He has done this lots of times before. I am just amazed -- I can understand him doing it in England, maybe Australia or China. But here having it happen in New York, it really surprises me. He tried to do it with Newt Gingrich too, you know. He got slapped in the face for it. He tried to buy him with a book contract, if you recall. Q. It is your understanding that Mr. Murdoch was trying to obtain favors from Mr. Gingrich? A. Absolutely. Q. What favors was he trying to obtain? A. Trying to get the Congress to approve his purchase of the television stations when you are supposed to be an American company and it is an Australian company that purchased them. It has been widely reported. And whatever else he has on his agenda. Q. Is it your understanding there is any impropriety or illegality in the city's carrying Bloomberg on its PEG stations? A. I don't know. It is clear to me that Bloomberg was just an afterthought, oh, we got another news channel here; well, we will just have to carry them along too, because otherwise it won't look right. Clearly at the beginning Mr. Bloomberg was totally out in the cold. It was all trying to help his buddy Murdoch. Q. Why is it your belief -- MR. GARBUS: Excuse me. You aren't saying -- MR. JOFFE: Wait a second. You are very big on order. Wait until your turn. MR. GARBUS: I wanted to clarify the question. You weren't saying Bloomberg was the mayor's buddy? THE WITNESS: I can't hear, everybody is hollering. MR. JOFFE: Don't say a thing. THE WITNESS: No. No. No. MR. JOFFE: Mr. Garbus, you are very big on clarification, coming in proper order. THE WITNESS: Who wants to step outside? MR. GARBUS: We are clear, thanks, Ted. THE WITNESS: No, I am not trying to tie Mr. Bloomberg with Mr. Murdoch. As far as I know, Mr. Bloomberg is a pretty decent sort. He has been here for years, nobody tried to put him on. He ain't paying City Hall off. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. What is the basis for your understanding that the city's proposed carriage of Fox News is illegal? A. I don't know whether it is illegal or not. MR. JOFFE: Mr. Goldin, this is really a waste of this witness' time. MR. GOLDIN: Thank you, Mr. Joffe. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. What is the basis for your understanding that the city's carriage of Bloomberg is illegal? MR. JOFFE: I will instruct the witness not to respond with any privileged advice that he has been given. Q. Don't disclose any conversations you have had with counsel. MR. GARBUS: Why don't we leave Bloomberg out of this. Let me deal with Mr. Turner on Bloomberg. MR. GOLDIN: I would like an answer to the question. MR. GARBUS: I object to the city asking questions about Bloomberg. I am very comfortable in having my dialogue with Mr. Turner. MR. GOLDIN: The objection is noted. Any concerns the parties, defendant are acting collusively have been abated. MR. JOFFE: Unless this was done by arrangement. You can answer the question. THE WITNESS: I don't even know what the question is. Would you repeat it. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. What is the basis for your understanding that the city's proposal to carry Bloomberg is illegal? A. I thought we weren't going to talk about Bloomberg. MR. GARBUS: Why don't you leave it alone. Let me have the discussion with Mr. Turner. I represent Bloomberg here. MR. GOLDIN: It is on the record, Mr. Garbus. Thank you. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. What is the basis for your understanding the city's proposal to carry Bloomberg is improper? A. It is clearly a commercial channel. It is not an educational PEG or local origination channel. It is a national service. From my knowledge, and it was discussed yesterday by the Cable Television Association executive committee, among a lot of other things, in our normal meeting, and it is not just my understanding but the people in the cable business, that this is, to my knowledge, without precedent. And is an absolute abuse of, or attempted abuse which will be defeated in the courts, as you will see, of trying to help out a political crony even at the expense of what is good for the community with these channels or what they are supposed to be used for. Q. Why do you believe it would be bad for the community if Fox News and Bloomberg ran on the city's PEG channels? MR. GARBUS: Again, I object. Fox and Bloomberg are two very very different things. MR. GOLDIN: Mr. Garbus, we don't need a speech. MR. GARBUS: The allegations as to Mr. Murdoch don't relate to Mr. Bloomberg. I object to tying them together. MR. GOLDIN: I didn't tie anybody together. MR. JOFFE: I have an entirely different objection, which I would like to get on the record. MR. GOLDIN: Are you going to have a speaking objection too or can you just object? MR. JOFFE: No, I will speak. MR. GOLDIN: What is the basis for a speaking objection? MR. JOFFE: Will you keep quiet so I can make my statement. I am not objecting, I am making a statement right now. MR. GOLDIN: What do you mean, you are-making a statement? Where under the rules of this court do you have an opportunity to make a statement? THE WITNESS: Let's act civilized. MR. JOFFE: Let's call the judge. She said you could have discovery on the issue why we made the decision not to carry Murdoch. And why we made the decision to carry MSNBC. He is not an affiant in this case. You don't have any business going into these issues. You are literally wasting his time. It is beyond the scope of the deposition. MR. GARBUS: Can I speak to the city for one second? MR. GOLDIN: Are you making an instruction? MR. JOFFE: No. MR. GOLDIN: You are not? MR. JOFFE: Absolutely not. I am just saying you are wasting his time. MR. GOLDIN: Can we have an answer to the question? There is a question pending. THE WITNESS: I am not going to answer it. MR. GOLDIN: Mr. Joffe, there is a question pending. MR. JOFFE: Fine. I am giving him legal advice. MR. GOLDIN: You can wait until the question is repeated. MR. JOFFE: I can do whatever 1 please. (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: I am not going to answer that question. That calls for -- I mean it is just goofy. MR. GOLDIN: We will take a break for a moment, on That note. (Recess Taken.) BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Mr. Turner, are you aware of negotiations that Time Warner had been having with Fox in the spring or summer of this year for Fox's becoming the other news channel that would be carried by Time Warner? A. I was vaguely familiar with them. Q. What was the source of your familiarity? A. I don't remember. Various. Q. Did you talk to anybody at Time Warner about those negotiations? A. I am sure I must have. I didn't gain any -- I can't remember gaining any significant knowledge. I just knew there were negotiations going on with both companies. Not just Fox, but people at MSNBC. I don't even know who was meeting with whom. Mostly I picked it up by reading about it. Q. Did you talk to Mr. Levin about those negotiations? A. I am sure I did. I said I talked to him about it. But, you know, not much, didn't gain much from it. Q. Are you aware that those negotiations began before the FTC's preliminary approval of the Time Warner/Turner merger? A. I think I remember reading about that. Q. That was the only source of your knowledge about those negotiations? A. It was the main source. Q. Had you also heard about it personally? A. I don't remember. I said that I did discuss it with Mr. Levin among hundreds of other things. Q. Are you aware that the consummation of a deal with Fox News was a very high priority at Time Warner? A. High priority compared to what? Q. Have you ever heard it described by anybody at Time Warner as second only to obtaining FTC approval among Time Warner's priorities? A. I don't remember ever hearing that. Q. Have you ever heard it described by anybody at Time Warner as a high priority? A. No. Not to my recollection. Q. Are you aware that a deal between Time Warner and Fox was in fact reached? A. I never heard that. Q. Did you hear that a deal was roughed out or close to being reached? A. I heard that there was close to being an agreement. Q. Did you hear the terms of that agreement? A. No. Q. Are you aware that that agreement required a $100 million plus upfront payment from Fox? A. I was unaware of that. I didn't know what the amount was. Q. Were you aware it required 90 percent penetration - A. No. Q. -- or carriage on Time Warner - A. I was unfamiliar with what the specifics of the various proposals. Normally what happens in these things, we are involved in them quite often, particularly when there are two head-to-head competitors, the cable operator does a really bright brilliant job of playing one off against the other to see what kind of considerations can be gotten, how much money. It is very complicated. Usually they string you along until the last minute, and make the deal with whoever they think the best deal is. Whoever didn't get the deal gets left out in the cold. That is just the way the game is played. Just like when you are buying a car. You-play one dealer off against the other. Then you make your buy, the other guy is out in the cold. That is what happened to Rupert. Q. You never -- A. Tough. Q. You never obtained any documents reflecting the terms of the Fox deal? A. Never. Or the MSNBC deal. I don't know what it is to this day. Q. Are you interested to find out? A. At some point in time. I guess. But it is not -- it would be strictly from an esoteric standpoint. Q. We were talking before about all news formats. Would you characterize MSNBC as baying an all news format? A. That is what they say it is. Q. What do you say? A. Well, I mean even -- there is times during CNN's day that, for instance, I don't know whether Crossfire is an all news program. I mean it is -- kind of reminds me what is happening here today. I wouldn't call it news, necessarily. MR. JOFFE: Certainly not educational. Q. But we could probably get it on the air. A. Now that would be a proper use of the channel. Q. Where were we? MSNBC. Would you characterize it as all news? A. I don't know. I haven't seen it but a few minutes. Q. Have you seen the Fox News Channel? A. Not at all. Q. Do you have any awareness of the MSNBC format other than the few minutes you have seen it? A. Just what I read about it. Q. Based on your reading do you have a view as to whether it is an all news channel? A. I don't know. I guess it comes as close to it as -- well, actually, it doesn't. They've got Don Imus in the morning, I don't consider that a news program. That is their highest rated program, too. Q. Do you have any awareness of the format of the Fox News Channel? A. Just what I read about it. Q. Based on that, do you consider it to be an all news channel? If you have a view. A. What difference does it make? Q. Just tell me the answer to the question, please. MR. JOFFE: The question is whether you have a view. THE WITNESS: I don't know, I haven't seen it. I read about it. It calls itself an all news channel. Mr. Murdoch had an Inside Edition, was that a news program? I don't know whether it was. Is tabloid news? I don't know. I don't have a personal opinion. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. I am asking you if you have a view. If you don't have a view -- A. I don't have a view. That is what I meant to say. Q. There you go. During the time you were making your recommendation, as you described before to Mr. Collins and to Mr. Levin about selecting a news channel, did you ever express a view that if you had to pick between MSNBC and Fox, you ought to go with one or the other? A. No. Q. Did you have such a view? A. No. I don't like either one of them. Q. Because of their impact on CNN? A. Well, they are both competitors, number one. I don't have a lot of respect for General Electric, either. They have been indicted 40 times for stealing from the government over the last 30 or 40 years. And admitted to it. And paid fines and stuff, stealing from the taxpayers on military contracts. If you recall, NBC News set that truck on fire, that Chevrolet truck on fire to get a better news story a few years ago, they fired the head of their news department. It is not as bad as GE. They are not scumbags like Murdoch. Q. If you had your druthers you would rather have -- A. It would be like would you rather be defeated by the Nazis or Japanese in World War II. Neither one of them is going to give you much of a break. You die in one concentration camp as fast as another. So, I really didn't -- I really don't favor one over the other. Q. In that analogy, is one of them the Nazi and the other the Japanese, or are they interchangeable? A. They are the enemy. They plan to keep our employees' children from going to college. Take food off the table of the people I work with. Just like Democrats would do if they take over City Hall. Q. You do the same thing. A. We play hard and we play fair. Q. Vis-a-vis their employees. You are also in the business of keeping food off their tables; right? A. I would like to. Q. During the course of the Time Warner/Turner proceedings before the FTC, did you speak to the FTC? A. The FTC? Q. Federal Trade Commission. In connection with the approval of the merger. A. I was questioned like this for a day down there one time, I think. Q. Did you tell the FTC anything about Time Warner's negotiations with Fox? A. I don't remember. Q. You might have? A. I might not have. We talked, you know. Q. Did you tell them anything about negotiations with MSNBC? A. I don't know. Q. Did you tell or did anybody else at Time Warner to your knowledge tell the FTC that Time Warner had limited ability to offer a second all news channel to viewers? A. Sorry? Q. Did you or anybody else at Time Warner tell the FTC that Time Warner had a limited ability to offer a second all news channel to viewers? - A. I don't remember. Q. So it is possible that that was said? A. Anything is possible. Q. Did you or anybody else at Time Warner hire anybody to contact or lobby the FTC in connection with obtaining FTC approval of the proposed merger? A. Sorry. Would you repeat the question. Q. Did you or anybody else at Time Warner hire anyone to lobby the FTC in connection with obtaining FTC approval? A. FTC? Q. FTC. Federal Trade Commission. A. There is an FCC. I am a little hard of hearing. I really don't know. I don't know. We had batteries of attorneys and lobbyists, I don't know whether they lobbied the FTC or not. Q. Did you consult any politicians or try to get any politicians help in persuading the FTC to give approval? A. Did I or a lobbyist? Q. Did anyone from Time Warner? A. I don't know. Q. We have been talking a moment ago about Japanese and Nazis, you have compared Rupert Murdoch to the late Fuhrer; is that right? A. Right. Q. Can you tell me what you meant by that comparison? A. Sure. The late Fuhrer, the first thing he did was - MR. GARBUS: That is not the best question I ever heard placed, but go ahead. THE WITNESS: The late Fuhrer, first thing he did, like all dictators, was take over the press and use it to further his agenda. Basically that is what Rupert Murdoch does with his media. It was reported in the editorial pages, not just me talking, it was a PBS Frontline program. Ken Auletta's article in the New Yorker last year. And editorials, I think The New York Times used the word shamelessly the way he promotes his own agenda by backing certain politicians and whatever else he does. He even went so far, I think it was probably a mistake, his cronies at the New York Post jumped the gun and took the listing out for CNN last week. His journalistic credentials are a joke. He is a disgrace to journalism. I am not the only one who said it. So did The Daily News on the editorial pages, words to that effect. So did The New York Times. Of course, they are his competitors, too. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Do you know whether that view is shared by anybody else at Time Warner? A. I don't know. Q. You never discussed the subject of your thoughts on Mr. Murdoch with anyone at Time Warner? A. I do my best to avoid it. Q. I am asking you -- A. I don't recall. I don't recall. Maybe I did. I have made my views pretty public. Q. I thought they might have come up in your conversations with people at Time Warner. A. I can't recall. Q. You haven't discussed with anybody at Time Warner your comparing Mr. Murdoch to the late Fuhrer? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you also say recently that editors or journalists who work for Mr. Murdoch are yellow journalists? A. I don't recall saying that. That would be -- I am sure not all of them would be. It doesn't seem like something I would have said. It is pretty hard with thousands of journalists to tar them all. Anyway. I answered the question. Q. Did you say at one point Time Warner is three times as big as News Corp., we are looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug? A. I did. Q. What did you mean by that? A. I meant we were going to try and squish him. He is a big person to squish. Clearly, that was joking. But I would like to see him get what he deserves in the end. I do believe, like Martin Luther King said, there is an ultimate morality in the universe. No lie can live forever. In his famous speech. Q. What do you think Mr. Murdoch deserves in the end? MR. GARBUS: I don't think that is the best question to ask, either. MR. JOFFE: You really want an answer to these questions? MR. GOLDIN: Yes. MR. JOFFE: You are wasting the witness' time. THE WITNESS: That is all right. It is his time. Just so long as Mr. Bloomberg gets his half hour. MR. JOFFE: I hope they are not going to do this just to use up three hours of your time, because that is what they have the right to. THE WITNESS: I would like to see him selling newspapers on the corner where I started out. I would like to see him end up where I started. That is what I think he deserves. MR. GOLDIN: Give us a moment, if you would. (Recess taken.) BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Did Mr. Levin -- A. Levin. Q. I stand corrected. -- Mr. Levin ever express to you any views concerning Mr. Murdoch? A. Not really -- not that I can recall. Q. Did Mr. Collins? A. Not that I can recall. Q. Did anybody else at Time Warner? A. You mean personal views like I just espoused? Q. Yes. A. No. Not that I know of. MR. GOLDIN: Let's go off the record for a moment. Thank you, Mr. Turner. THE WITNESS: You can call me Ted now. I enjoyed talking to y'all. MR. GOLDIN: It has been a pleasure. MR. JOFFE: I would like to know the subject you want to inquire on before we get a ruling. His political contributions? MR. GOLDIN: That was the only one. Was there another area where it came up? MR. JOFFE: As far as I recall. MR. GOLDIN: Those were the questions. EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY MR. GARBUS: Q. You have given us your views of Murdoch. Can you give me -- you have been dealing with Bloomberg to some extent with respect to Headline News for a period of time. Have you known about Bloomberg for a while? A. I have known about him for quite a while. But I think that is not true. I have not personally been involved, to the best of my knowledge, with Mr. Bloomberg. I know that he is currently running the local edition and headline edition here in New York, because I have seen it myself. Q. Can you describe to me what that local edition is on the Headline News? A. I have seen on the satellite several times the Bloomberg News Service. Q. Can you give me your views both of the service and of Michael Bloomberg, to the extent you know anything about him? A. I have read articles about him. That is the only way. I have wanted to meet him. We have never had a chance to get together. Which I would like to correct at some point in time. Q. It is fair to say that you have some degree of respect for him? A. Yes. Q. As you probably know -- A. Amazing entrepreneur. Q. As you probably know, there has never been an accusation he has ever been politically involved. He happened to be a Dinkins supporter rather than a Giuliani supporter. You knew that? A. I knew that. Q. With respect to the business, you know something about the business that he has built and what he does with it? A. Yes, I do. Q. You know something about the information that he presents on the CNN Headline News? A. Yes. Q. You know that he takes that news and he localizes it and customizes it for various areas? A. That's right. I don't know how intimate that is. But I have seen his news here in New York. I have seen the national newscasts that runs on the satellite. Q. You know that the newscasts that come out on your Headline News in New York are different than Headline News that might be on CNN in California? A. That somebody else might be doing? Q. Or even that he might be doing. A. Is he doing it somewhere else? Q. In other words, he does local news here and local news elsewhere? A. I didn't know that. MR. JOFFE: What is the question? MR. GARBUS: He did not know. THE WITNESS: Right. MR. GARBUS: So we are past it. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. You were talking before about what is appropriate for PEG channels in your judgment. You have been for many years chairman of the National Cable Television Association? A. No. No. This is the -- less than, about six months, so far. That is is about a nine month term. Like most associations, we have PEG president. Then each year we get a new chairman who is, basically it is an honorary position as much as anything. You do preside over the meetings of the board four times a year. Q. Do you have some sense of what should be shown on PEG channels? A. I think. Public access channels, right. Sure. Q. Tell me what kind of material that should include, local calendars? A. That's right. City Hall meetings. High school or courses in college courses. What do you call it where you learn how to be a plumber or something like that? Things that- are of benefit to the local community, usually community oriented programming. Q. Does that mean they shouldn't show any international news at all? A. I don't know. I haven't got an opinion on that. But there is lots of other sources for national and international news on the commercial channels. Q. So would the subject of, let's say, what is on C-Span, would that be on a local level appropriate for a PEG channel? A. If it was, you know, the local City Hall meetings, absolutely. That is what my understanding is. I have never been a cable operator. Quite frankly, I don't watch those channels very often. I don't hardly have time to see all the channels we have got. But that has always been my understanding. It is like a C- Span, a local C-Span. Q. A local C-Span has talk shows, they do some book shows, Book Chat? A. Yes. Q. And local C-Span, the C-Span has some international news also; is that right? A. Well C-Span normally, I mean its bread and butter, it is not news, its bread and butter is the live activities of the Congress. Q. You are not suggesting, I am just asking the question, that the entire 100 percent of the time would be local news with a mix, let's say, of 50 percent local news, 25 percent educational and 25 national news? That satisfies, as you understand it, the requirements of a PEG channel? A. I never thought that local news -- I haven't watched them enough to know. If it was local news provided by local commercial channel, I would think that would be inappropriate. Q. In other words, the question in your mind then as to whether it is appropriate or not is whether or not it is a commercial channel that provides it. A. How would you fund, there is no funding for City Hall to have a news operation. I don't know of any government body, other than the CIA or the USISA than has their own news organization. That is for propaganda purposes overseas. Q. So the probabilities are no municipality would have the funds to do its own news channel? MR. JOFFE: Mr. Garbus, first of all, that is not a question. Second of all, this is a waste of the witness' time. You are making an argument. You're not asking questions. MR. GARBUS, These are questions. I will push them. MR. JOFFE: What is the question? MR. GARBUS, I asked it. Can I have the question back. (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. So if you are going to have a news channel on PEG, it is either commercial or it doesn't exist? A. I don't know. I mean -- Q. Let's assume in this case that you have a commercial operation, it can be a news channel, it can be whatever else it is, and it pays to do a 24- hour news channel on PEG. Is that appropriate? A. That it rents a channel? Q. No. In other words, you have some organization, it could be C- Span which is a profit, commercial corporation. A. A what? Q. C-Span. A. I don't think it is. I think C-Span is nonprofit. To the best of my knowledge. I am not positive. Q. Let's assume a not for profit corporation. A. Not for profit. Q. Let's assume an not for profit corporation says to the City of New York, we will at no cost to you put on a 24-hour news channel and that news channel will be 50 percent local, 25 percent national, and 25 percent how to do it, education. In your judgment, does that comply with PEG? A. I don't know. MR. JOFFE: Object. This is way beyond what the judge said is permissible. THE WITNESS: I already said I don't know. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Does the mere fact, let's assume it is a commercial channel which says I will donate the time, I will permit -- MR. JOFFE: Let's call the judge, Mr. Garbus. MR. GARBUS: Surely. May I finish the question? BY MR. GARBUS: Q. I will give the city 50 percent local news, 25 percent national news, and 25 percent how to do it; is that appropriate? A. I don't know. MR. JOFFE: Are you going to insist on this line of questions? MR. GARBUS: I think we have an answer. Mr. Turner says he doesn't know; is that right? THE WITNESS: I've never given it any thought. I do not know enough about, I never read what the arrangements are on these city channels and whether they can be -- I just don't have enough knowledge really to be able to answer that question honestly or intelligently. BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. You don't have a judgment? A. A judgment? Q. Yes. A. Not really. Q. Thank you. Now let me go through some of the things you said. PEG, public, educational, governmental, are to some extent three separate structures, calendars, that clearly do apply? A. I really don't know. I hardly have ever watched these channels. I really don't know, except that I know that they are not supposed to be handed out as political favors to commercial operations that are on the take from from private enterprise. Q. Putting Mr. Murdoch aside, or other people like Mr. Murdoch who you believe fit that bill, you have no reason to believe that Bloomberg fit that bill? A Absolutely not. Q. Did you know in this particular case the way the Bloomberg application comes in is Bloomberg reads about it in the newspapers, calls the city and says can I go on? Did you know that is how it works? A. I didn't know how it happened. I was really interested to find out. Q. Let me see if we can help you. After Bloomberg hears about what is going on, a smart businessman - A. How long has Bloomberg News been available 24 hours? Q. I don't know. A. Okay. It has been several years, though? Q. Yes. I will try to get you the answer. A. It is interesting the mayor didn't care about putting you on. MR. GOLDIN: When I got up he was asking the questions. It seems to have reversed. MR. GARBUS: That is all right, Mr. Turner asks good questions. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. On October 7 Bloomberg offers a letter to Mr. Giuliani offering a news service. He testifies before the Department of Information, Technology and Telecommunications. Did you know any of those facts? A. No. Q. In fact, do you see any impropriety in that process? MR. JOFFE: Come on, this is not proper questioning. I really will call the judge. I want the last several questions read back. MR. GARBUS: I will go ahead into a different pattern. THE WITNESS: Objection sustained or whatever. This is like Perry Mason, for God's sake. Like the OJ trial. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. You said before that news is broadly defined. Can you tell me what comes under your definition of what is news? A. Oh, I already said in earlier testimony what my definition of news, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference. Q. It certainly does. You have been in business a long time. A. I looked it up in Webster's Dictionary years ago. It said news is information previously unknown. Q. That includes? A. Everything. Q. Thank you very much. That includes education? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I don't think -- I see a difference between educational and news programming. News programming is there to inform you, as I understand it. And educational programming is there to educate you. They are somewhat related. But they are-separate. Q. Tell me how they are related. A. Well, normally it is pretty hard to educate someone without them learning new information. But educational information is very different in my opinion, or often different, mostly different from news information. You can have sex information, you can say that was news, too, or sex education. They are related but they are different. Q. You call CNN a news channel? A. That is what we call it. I don't call it an educational channel. Q. Is there any educational material on CNN? A. Very little. By the broadest of definitions just finding out which plane went down yesterday as educational or watching the O.J. Simpson trial. You are being educated about the O.J. Simpson trial. Education to me is like mathematics, or learning how to be a plumber, or history, or language, something like that. What you get in school, college or trade school or law school. That is education. Q. How about current events? A. Current events, it depends. If it was a symposium of professors talking about archaeology, and you are studying archaeology, that would be education. If it is just information, news information, then it wouldn't be. In my opinion. Q. Now, how about local calendar, that is educational, telling people what is going on in New York? A. No. Not in my opinion, it is not. It is informational. Q. How about people, C-Span, let's say learning about what goes on in Congress? A. I don't think C-Span is educational. Q. How about let's say watching a presidential debate? A. I don't consider that educational. Q. Did you know the city channel in New York used to carry the OTB results? A. Carry what? Q. The Off Track Betting results. A. Well, I certainly wouldn't think that was educational. Q. Do you know if anybody ever objected to it? A. I don't know. So few people watch those channels, it is kind of - - but they do serve a purpose because I think it is good to have, you know, City Halls hearings and things like that. Or I guess even probably a local calendar doesn't hurt. But I am not an expert on how these channels are used. I've hardly ever seen them. I am not a cable TV operator. I am a programmer. There was no real reason for me to really get into it. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Do you know of any operations in the country other than Bloomberg's that has the ability or facility to customize news the way it does; in other words, to take a news broadcast and make it very local the way it does? A. Well, every local television station in America does that. Q. Now, if you had a local news station that went out under the PEG channel to develop local news, wouldn't that be with New York 1 in New York which is the New York station on cable? A. It might. Q. You don't find the fact it is competitive, merely competitive with a cable station, a reason to knock it off PEG? MR. JOFFE: Object. Can you read back the question. (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: I had never thought about it. Like I said, I am not intimately familiar with what happens with these channels. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. So you don't believe a factor in whether you should knock something off PEG is because it may or may not be competitive with a, let's say something else that goes out on the cable? A. I don't know. Q. For example, let's assume it were the BBC that was going to be on PEG, to some extent that might compete with CNN. But you don't think that by itself means the BBC should be knocked off? A. I never heard of any PEG channels anywhere running portions of a commercial channel. Q. Let's assume that the BBC, if this is possible, ran 24- hour news with no ads. A. It does. Q. With no ads. A. I don't know whether it runs ads or not. Q. With no ads. Let's say it did 50 percent local news, 25 percent national news. It was to some extent competitive with CNN? A. They don't do it. Q. Let's assume they do that. A. I don't want to speculate. It is clear, it is in the agreement between the city and the cable systems of what these, what the agreements are. I haven't read them. I don't see any reason for me to. MR. JOFFE: You are really wasting the witness' time. You are trying to get him to testify about something about which he is not an expert. You are really asking for legal conclusions. Facts are what you can ask this witness about. THE WITNESS: That is what you have the judge here to decide. MR. GARBUS: That is great. Mr. Joffe is the judge. MR. JOFFE: We can get the judge. THE WITNESS: He is not, but the judge that will read this testimony. MR. JOFFE: We will have the judge here in a second, Mr. Garbus. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Since about 1995, this is a question you asked before, Bloomberg has been providing local edition segments for inclusion on Turner's Headline News. They give you, as I understand it, twenty 6 minute reports seven days a week. Have you ever seen any of them? A. Sorry. They are not 26 minutes. Q. Plus 20, separate six minute reports to CNN. They have been doing that since May of 1995; are you aware of that? A. I only -- the only place I was aware they were doing it was here in New York. I am unaware they do it anyplace else. That is the first I heard of it. Q. Have you ever seen any of those? A. I have seen the ones in New York a few times. Q. The six minutes you have seen in New York are predominantly local news? MR. JOFFE: Is that a question? Q. Based on what you have seen. Are they predominantly local news or are they national news as well? A. A little of both. Q. Do you know the percentage of local news and national news? A. No. Q. If you took that six minute segments -- and it does some City Council hearings. Have you ever seen that? A. No. How can you do a City Council hearing in six minutes? Q. You can do a sound bite of it. A. Oh, okay. Q. So you know that -- A. I didn't know that. I don't remember. I just watched it a few times. Q. But you have seen, on the times you watched, you have seen local news, some city administration stuff? A. Lots of stuff. It has horoscopes, scores. So much going on, to me it is pretty confusing. Maybe there are people that can absorb all that at one time. Q. Do you have any reason to believe if that particular segment was projected and expanded over 24 hours without advertising, whether or not that would comply with the PEG requirements? A. I don't think it would. Q. Why not? A. Because it is a news channel. It would be a news channel run by, not by the city but by an independent commercial operation that had an axe to grind. In your case, even if there were no commercials on it, basically Bloomberg makes most of its money selling its computer stock service, or investment service. I have a son-in-law who is an investment banker, and it costs a fortune every month. Just by having your name on all the time everybody knows, you would be getting a lot of benefit out of it whether it was running commercials or not. Basically promoting your base business. Q. So the objection would be then to having the Bloomberg name on the channel would be - A. Would be a commercial operation designed to promote what you are doing, whether you are running somebody else ad's or not. You are constantly promoting Bloomberg. You say you promote your radio station here and your satellite service in every newscast as part of the editorial. As part of the editorial. Mr. Bloomberg is a brilliant promoter. Q. Do you know that Bloomberg has stuff on national public radio which is similar in a way to the CNN stuff? A. I did not know that. Q. Do you know that he has stuff on public television? A. I did not know that either. Q. Did you know that both on radio and public television these are public service broadcasts which always have the name Bloomberg, either Bloomberg Reporter or Bloomberg Funds, did you know that? A. I did not know that. Q. You know on PBS you will have let's say an hour of TV funded by Mobil or somebody? A. Yes. Q. You will also see a Mobil logo? A. Yes. Q. Do you think that makes it less public interest merely because the logo is there? A. Maybe not, but it does make it commercial, though. Because they are receiving money to help pay for the program. They are also receiving commercial considerations in their name being mentioned. Q. Who is receiving money for the program? A. Public broadcasting or the station that makes the program in return for using their name. Mobil presents Masterpiece Theatre or whatever it is. Q. You are not saying Mobil gets any money out of that? A. But they are getting promotional time which is the same thing. Q. Other than promotional time? A. Well, promotional time is a form of advertising. Q. So what you're saying then on the PEG channels, one of the objections you have is the mere use of the name? A. I don't -- look, I don't run any PEG channels. I never read an agreement between any PEG channels. I just have a general understanding of what is supposed to run on them. As I understand it, from a layman's standpoint, it is supposed to be noncommercial and primarily educational programming and local government activities. Q. You don't know whether either the statutes or contracts between the parties ever say that? A. No. MR. JOFFE: Of course he doesn't. Why are you wasting this witness's time? THE WITNESS: I said that. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Does the carrying of, let's say tabloid journalism, which you have attributed to Murdoch, is that a factor in whether a news program or any program on PEG would be appropriate or inappropriate for PEG? MR. JOFFE: Would you read that back. (The pending question was read.) THE WITNESS: First of all, Mr. Murdoch is not the only person, by any manner or means, that is involved in tabloid journalism. Although he is famous for it. But there are other people that do it as well. I would personally -- tabloid, you have tabloid journalists in newspapers. Tabloid newspapers. There were three tabloid television programs that -- they are all commercial programs. One was Inside Edition which has failed in the ratings, then canceled. You still have Inside Edition and one other one I think that is still out there. I can't remember the name of it. I never watch them. I think those commercial tabloid journalism programs would probably be just as improper for PEG channels as Mr. Murdoch's news service or Mr. Bloomberg's news service. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Did you know Time Warner offered to the city to do a news channel for them on PEG? A. I did not know that. Q. Never heard of that until now? A. No. Never heard of it. Q. Surprise you? A. Nothing surprises me. Q. Do you know why you weren't told that before you came here to testify? A. I don't know. There is a lot of things I haven't been told. How long ago was it? Q. We will get into it. A. It doesn't matter. Q. If Bloomberg had taken off, in your judgment as chairman of the National Cable Television Association, its logo, would that by itself permit it to be considered for the PEG channel? MR. JOFFE: Objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I have no idea. MR. JOFFE: These are legal questions. You're wasting his time, Mr. Garbus. I will send the transcript to the judge so she can see how you are spending your half hour. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Did you know that Bloomberg had offered to do 75 percent of the material on the 24- hour news to be purely local in nature? A. No, I didn't know. Q. At the time that this suit was filed did you have any idea what Bloomberg had shown on television? On the PEG channel? A. No. I didn't -- was he ever on the PEG channel? Q. As you sit here today, you didn't know he was on the PEG channel? A. I don't know. Q. As you sit here today, you have never seen, your lawyers have never shown you and you have never seen what he had put on the PEG channel? A. No. I didn't even know he was on it. How would I have seen it when I didn't even know it was on? Q. You have no idea what he has offered to put on the PEG channel? A. No. Q. For the 24 hours? A. No. Q. So your sole objection, as I understand then, is that irrespective of what he shows, he should be knocked off merely because he is commercial? A. I haven't objected at all. Q. You have no objection then to -- A. I don't personally. I haven't even given it a thought. Q. Thank you. You have given it a thought with respect to Mr. Murdoch? A. Absolutely. Q. But you're open minded on Mr. Bloomberg? A. I am open minded on everything. Q. I know that. MR. GARBUS: Excuse me, can I have a minute. (Recess taken.) BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Mr. Turner, the city was asking you questions about conversations with Collins and Levin. Did Bloomberg ever come up in those conversations? A. I don't remember. Q. Now, do you know if at any time while they were talking to MSNBC and Fox they ever made any attempt to speak to Bloomberg about whether Bloomberg should be - A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you know if Bloomberg ever went to them and tried to get them themselves? A. No. Q. You were talking about local news. Would you agree what is appropriate in Scarsdale and Iowa is different than Manhattan? A. What? Q. When you talk about definition of local news on a PEG channel, that would be appropriate, the kind of information - THE WITNESS: I didn't say it was appropriate. MR. JOFFE: He never said it was appropriate. THE WITNESS: I don't remember saying local news is appropriate. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Let's say local information, calendars or hearing, depending on the locale, namely whether it be Iowa or Scarsdale or New York, you might have different mixes that were appropriate; is that right? A. Conceivably. I haven't given it any thought. Q. And that a place, let's say, that is the agricultural capital, Nebraska, might be different? A. Have the corn news, where it might just be corny here. Q. And in New York, which is the financial capital, it might have financial information. A. All right. I don't know what financial information would be doing on a PEG channel. You have CNBC, Bloomberg, you have the radio. You have people that are already doing the financial news. But, I don't know. Q. But you don't take the position merely because something is financial it shouldn't be on a PEG channel? A. No. Q. You don't take the position that issues about the economy or business shouldn't be on a PEG channel? A. I don't know. MR. JOFFE: This is totally inappropriate. THE WITNESS: I don't know whether it is inappropriate or not. MR. JOFFE: The questions are inappropriate. I am not saying the news is inappropriate. THE WITNESS: You must be getting paid by the word. MR. JOFFE: The questions are not the kind of discovery the judge had in mind. Of that, I am confident. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Do you know anything about the contract between CNN, Headline News and Bloomberg? A. No. Q. You don't -- A. Anything? Q. Yes. Do you know what Bloomberg was required to provide to Headline News? A. No, no, I don't. Q. I suppose you know nothing about the length of the agreement or potential termination of the agreement? A. No. Q. Those business decisions or those content decisions are left elsewhere than in your hands? A. Right. MR. GARBUS: Thank you. MR. JOFFE: David, I continue to think that these questions about political contributions by Mr. Turner are inappropriate. But since you haven't wasted your time to the point that we are up against the deadline, what I will do is this: I will let you ask the questions. But I will maintain it is inappropriate to do so. I don't want to bother the judge. I reserve to complain to the judge this is an abuse. I don't want to have him called back. So I will lift my instruction. I really would urge you to consider whether this is an appropriate series of questions. MR. GOLDIN: That's fine. With that in mind, if the reporter can locate those questions. EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. GOLDIN: Q. Very briefly, Mr. Turner, you testified earlier, I believe, that Turner Broadcasting through a PAC had made contributions to political candidates. I asked if it ever made contributions to any political candidates whose positions or actions were inimical to the interest of Turner Broadcasting. A. You mean against? Q. Yes. A. I use the words, but I don't know what they mean. Yes, we do it all the time. Q. What candidates would those be? A. Well, perfect example would be -- first of all, we pretty well contribute, to the best of my knowledge, to the best of my recollection, almost 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. I personally strongly believe in campaign reform, because we almost are always giving to incumbents. It helps perpetuate the system. It really doesn't matter whether they are with us or against us. We are just giving in the hopes, in the vain hope because they are on the committees in the Congress that are important to us. But, like Ed Markey, the democrat from Massachusetts who was majority leader -- not majority leader but he was the head of the telecommunications subcommittee when the Democrats were in. He was one of the ones that helped to really set back the cable industry. We kept giving to him anyway by leading the charge on the cable regulations a few years ago. We have continued to try and have a good relationship with him because you never know what will come up next. Basically PAC money, you give it because you think it is going to do you some good down the line. But with a thousand bucks being the limit, you can't buy a whole lot of influence for that, fortunately. MR. GOLDIN: I have nothing further. MR. JOFFE: I have only one question, I think. EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY MR. JOFFE: Q. Mr. Turner, do you consider yourself an expert on what is or is not PEG programming? A. I definitely am not an expert. I know virtually nothing about it. MR. JOFFE: No further questions. MR. GARBUS: I will ask a few questions. EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. GARBUS: Q. How long have you been in the cable business? A. I haven't ever been in the cable business. Q. How long have you been in the TV business? A. Since 1970. Q. How long have you been involved with CNN? A. Since 1980. Q. Have you ever been involved in any way with C-Span? A. No. Q. You mentioned before you were chairman of an organization for nine months. Tell me something about that organization. A. It is the national organization that is made up of most of the cable operators. That is, you know, just like association of lawyers, you know, everybody has got one. You get around, they talk about problems, initial problems, they have a lobbying organization. Usually they are headquartered in Washington. NRA, that is for the gun owners. Q. Have you been involved with that organization before? A. Yes. Q. How long? A. Long time. I have been a member of it for years. On the board for the last six or seven years. On the executive committee for the last few years. I am the first programmer ever to be chairman of that organization. It is kind of a milestone. Q. What kind of issues does that organization deal with? A. Mainly they are concerned about regulation. Adverse regulation. That is the biggest thing. Q. Concerned about the relationship between the cable business and federal, city and state governments? A. Yes. Also the image of cable. They try and come up with campaigns every now and then. Service guarantees to try to correct industry-wide problems or perceptions of problems. Q. Have they ever dealt with PEG issues, to your knowledge? A. They deal with just about everything at some point or another. During my administration and my time that hasn't been a big issue to the best of my recollection. Q. Other than this particular organization, have you been involved in your lifetime with any other organizations dealing with cable business, media business, television business? A. I was a member years ago of the Independent Television Station Association. I was one of the founding members of that. Q. What does that do? A. They looked after independent television stations. Which had a different agenda from the broadcast affiliated stations. It has pretty well gone by the wayside now, because just about most television stations now have a network affiliation. That was before there was a Fox Network or Warner Bros. or UPN Networks. Q. How long were you part of that? A. Four or five years. I don't think I am still members of it because I haven't been to the meetings in years. Q. With respect to this National Cable organization that you mentioned -- A. I am a member of Ducks Unlimited. They are trying to save the ducks, you know. Q. Have they ever discussed PEG channels? A. No. Q. Okay. Now with respect to the National Cable, that is all the cable operators throughout the United States? A. Not all. There is a few renegades that won't pay their share of the dues. But it is the vast majority. Q. About 95 percent? A. More or less. Q. Who else besides you is a member of this? A. Oh, almost all the cable operators. 95 percent of the industry. Most of the programmers, too. Like ESPN and Discovery Channel. Q. Have you ever given any speeches on cable? A. Sure. Q. Where have you given those speeches? A. All over. Media in general. I make a lot of speeches. Q. You are considered an expert in this area? A. What area? MR. JOFFE: What area? MR. GARBUS: The area of cable. THE WITNESS: Not on PEG channels. I never made a speech on them. I don't think I ever even mentioned them. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Had you heard of them before this lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. When did you first hear of it? A. I don't know. Q. Five years ago? A. Before that. We have complained bitterly a lot of times, it takes up a lot of channel space that could be better utilized because, you know, some of them, depends on the city government. Some cities keep the potholes filled in the roads. Some do a better job than others of operating the PEG channels. It is up to the individual management. The word I have heard, they are kind of underutilized in a lot of instances. I guess that is basically what the city in New York said. They can give them away to two commercial voices and cut back and nobody could care less. Q. You have felt that the cable operator should be taking over those PEG operators - A. If they are being properly utilized and-providing a service to the people in the city. Cable is a lot of different things to a lot of different people - - MR. JOFFE: But if they are not -this is not a proper question. This certainly does not arise out of my one question on cross. THE WITNESS: I can handle this. MR. JOFFE: You sure can. You are hitting him out of the park. I want you to get out of here. THE WITNESS: I am running a bit ahead, actually. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. To the extent, Mr. Turner - MR. JOFFE: So much for counsel influencing the witness. THE WITNESS: Come on, let the man ask the question. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. To the extent the PEG channels are underutilized, you feel the cable operators such as yourself should take them over? A. I am not a cable operator. I do not think so, because that is part of the franchise agreement. Those channels belong to the city government and just because they are not being utilized intelligently now, who knows, maybe the next administration will do a better job of operating them. If there is another administration. Q. You think people like Time Warner who own the cable channels should have some say in how those channels are being utilized? A. Clearly. Just like if you own a television station you ought to have a lot of say what goes on it. Cable is the same thing. There is a lot of competition to the cable. Satellite. Mr. Bloomberg is promoting it on cable every half hour. MR. JOFFE: I really am going to send this transcript to the judge. I am going to show her this. THE WITNESS: The judge doesn't care. You sit back. He is running out of steam. MR. JOFFE: You underestimate Mr. Garbus. THE WITNESS: No. He has done his business. MR. JOFFE: You consider it a challenge to get him to the point of exhaustion. THE WITNESS: He is just about finished. He is going to get a few tickets while they are still available. You better hurry. BY MR. GARBUS: Q. Just so we clear up the last question and answer. A. All right. Q. This is the last question and answer, I promise you, unless I get tickets. In which case I withdraw the last question. You believe that you and Time Warner have a right to say what should be on the PEG channels? A. No. Absolutely not. MR. GARBUS: Thank you. MR. JOFFE: Thank you all. (TIME NOTED: 2:00 P.M.) |
|
LEGAL DOCUMENTS | HOMEPAGE | VERDICTS | FAMOUS CASES | TRIAL TRACKING | PROGRAM GUIDE | CTV STORE | GAMES/CONTEST | LEGAL TERMS | SEARCH | INDEX | HOW TO GET CTV | COMMENTS
|