been written, we declined. I saw noth- ing to be gained by appearing to argue in print with one of our direc- tors and largest shareowners. Even with hindsight, it's hard to know whether Armstrong was hopelessly naive about the media or Malone was. My guess is that they both were. Tough Calls The Journal story opened with the following sentence: "Cable-TV pioneer John Malone, one of AT&T Corp.'s biggest individual share- holders, says he is promoting several recommendations to top man- agement-like it or not-that he thinks could provide some significant fixes for the ailing telephone giant." The "fixes" were a mix of ideas that Malone had floated in print before (such as tracking stocks) and ideas that had worked for him in the past (such as getting into programming to leverage AT&T's new status as the nation's largest cable TV operator). But by inserting the parenthetical phrase "like it or not," the reporter put a negative spin on everything that followed. She made nothing up. She quoted Malone accurately. But she also created the impression that Malone and Armstrong were somehow at odds. The ostensible purpose for doing the interview didn't appear until the eighth paragraph: "Mr. Malone also says he supports Mr. Armstrong and believes he is doing a good job under the circumstances."> Now, John Malone is a financial genius of the first order. In the cable industry's early days, when raising money was a challenge, Ma- lone specialized in devising incredibly convoluted deals that allowed his investors to shelter income and avoid taxes, in effect using Uncle Sam as a silent, if unknowing, partner. He created tracking stocks and moved assets in and out of them to suit his purpose or the investment fad of the moment. But he would not have gotten away with any of it-even though it was all perfectly legal-at AT&T. The company was simply too big, too visible, and under too much scrutiny. Even a re- porter whom he considered a friend used him for her own purposes. There simply was no story in Malone's supporting Armstro