There was a lot of speculation about Koppel replacing him. Peter grew into the job and the network accommodated the show to his strengths and interests. He had a long ride at the top.

I think Andrew has had the scarlet letter on his forehead since the '60 Minutes' episode. It was only a matter of time.

Peter was not looked upon as an unmitigated blessing in the early '80s.

Unless there's a compelling reason not to.

I do not believe the press is guilty of the charge that it abandoned its healthy skepticism in Iraq , and I would hate to see it draw the inference from New Orleans that 'in your face' journalism is the panacea for restoring our lost credibility.

I think ABC decided to take one risk instead of two.

The potential to inflame is greater than the value of the piece itself.

If I were making the decision, I imagine Charlie would anchor for another five or six years, ... they could get a 20-year ride, assuming TV news lasts another 20 years.