If the weekly magazine is still being published 25 years from now, Michael Wolff will owe David Remnick a dinner.

Question: David Remnick told us he’s not worried about the rnfuture of the New Yorker. Should he be? 

Michael Wolff:rn He obviously should be worried. And he is worried, so he was just... I rndon't know, just exercising some particular sense of propriety in his rndiscussion with you because he's worried and everybody's worried and rnmore importantly his owners are worried. Print, as a model, is at a rnmoment in time where virtually all assumptions about the business are rnchanging. The assumptions about reader habits and reader behavior are rnchanging. The assumptions about the nature of advertising, about who rnshould be advertising, about the pricing of advertising is changing. 

Sorn the idea that The New Yorker will be around in 25 years is rather rnpreposterous and I'll certainly buy him dinner if it is. 

Question:rn Is Graydon Carter worried? 

Michael Wolff: As David rnexercises a certain propriety in talking about his magazine, I will rnprobably do the same about mine. But I do think people at Vanity Fair rnare attentive to what's happening and the changes that are going on and rntrying to look for ways to stay on top of what's clearly a sense of rnchanging expectations about magazines and about print. I mean, one of rnthe things, and again this is the magazine I work for so I'm not rnobjective here, but I think one of the things that Vanity Fair has rnsucceeded in doing and it's a lesson for all magazines is to think of rnmagazines as an object, which we curiously don't. We think of magazines rnas ideas and journalism and storytelling, instead of as a literal objectrn that goes on your coffee table, which you're proud to have there.