Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments Six Flags In connection with the Company's former investment in the Six Flags theme parks located in Georgia and Texas (collectively, the “Parks”), in 1997, certain subsidiaries of the Company (including Historic TW and, in connection with the separation of Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”) in 2009, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) agreed to guarantee (the “Six Flags Guarantee”) certain obligations of the partnerships that hold the Parks (the “Partnerships”) for the benefit of the limited partners in such Partnerships, including: annual payments made at the Parks or to the limited partners and additional obligations at the end of the respective terms for the Partnerships in 2027 and 2028 (the “Guaranteed Obligations”). The aggregate undiscounted estimated future cash flow requirements covered by the Six Flags Guarantee over the remaining term (through 2028) are approximately $1.0 billion (for a net present value of approximately $410 million). To date, no payments have been made by the Company pursuant to the Six Flags Guarantee. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (formerly known as Six Flags, Inc. and Premier Parks Inc.) (“Six Flags”), which has the controlling interest in the Parks, has agreed, pursuant to a subordinated indemnity agreement (the “Subordinated Indemnity Agreement”), to guarantee the performance of the Guaranteed Obligations when due and to indemnify Historic TW, among others, if the Six Flags Guarantee is called upon. If Six Flags defaults in its indemnification obligations, Historic TW has the right to acquire control of the managing partner of the Parks. Six Flags' obligations to Historic TW are further secured by its interest in all limited partnership units held by Six Flags. In connection with Six Flags' emergence from bankruptcy, on April 30, 2010, a Time Warner subsidiary (TW-SF LLC), as lender, entered into a 5-year $150 million multiple draw term facility with certain affiliates of the Partnerships, as borrowers, which can be used only to fund such affiliates' annual obligations to purchase certain limited partnership units of the Partnerships. Any loan made under the facility will mature 5 years from its respective funding date. No loans were made under the facility in 2010 or 2011. The facility will expire on April 30, 2015, unless it terminates earlier upon election by the borrowers or due to the acceleration or certain refinancings of Six Flags' secured credit facility. Because the Six Flags Guarantee existed prior to December 31, 2002 and no modifications to the arrangements have been made since the date the guarantee came into existence, the Company is required to continue to account for the Guaranteed Obligations as a contingent liability. Based on its evaluation of the current facts and circumstances surrounding the Guaranteed Obligations and the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement, the Company is unable to predict the loss, if any, that may be incurred under these Guaranteed Obligations and no liability for the arrangements has been recognized at June 30, 2011. Because of the specific circumstances surrounding the arrangements and the fact that no active or observable market exists for this type of financial guarantee, the Company is unable to determine a current fair value for the Guaranteed Obligations and related Subordinated Indemnity Agreement. Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in or parties to various legal claims, actions and proceedings. These claims, actions and proceedings are at varying stages of investigation, arbitration or adjudication, and involve a variety of areas of law. On October 8, 2004, certain heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of the creators of the “Superman” character, filed suit against the Company, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks an accounting and demands up to one-half of the profits made on Superman since the alleged April 16, 1999 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of one-half of the rights to the Superman character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. Plaintiffs have also asserted various Lanham Act and unfair competition claims, alleging “wasting” of the Superman property by DC Comics, and the Company has filed counterclaims. On March 26, 2008, the court entered an order of summary judgment finding, among other things, that plaintiffs' notices of termination were valid and that plaintiffs had thereby recaptured, as of April 16, 1999, their rights to a one-half interest in the Superman story material, as first published, but that the accounting for profits would not include profits attributable to foreign exploitation, republication of pre-termination works and trademark exploitation. On October 6, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiffs' Lanham Act and “wasting” claims with prejudice, and subsequently determined that the remaining claims in the case will be subject to phased non-jury trials. On July 8, 2009, the court issued a decision in the first phase trial in favor of the defendants on the issue of whether the terms of various license agreements between DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. were at fair market value or constituted “sweetheart deals.” On May 17, 2011, the court certified certain liability issues for interlocutory appeal and stayed proceedings pending that appeal. On October 22, 2004, the same Siegel heirs filed a related lawsuit against the same defendants, as well as Warner Communications Inc. and Warner Bros. Television Production Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs claim that Siegel was the sole creator of the character Superboy and, as such, DC Comics has had no right to create new Superboy works since the alleged October 17, 2004 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of rights to the Superboy character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. This lawsuit seeks a declaration regarding the validity of the alleged termination and an injunction against future use of the Superboy character. On March 23, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on termination, denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and held that further proceedings are necessary to determine whether the Company's Smallville television series may infringe on plaintiffs' rights to the Superboy character. On July 27, 2007, upon the Company's motion for reconsideration, the court reversed the bulk of its March 23, 2006 ruling, and requested additional briefing on certain issues, on which a decision remains pending. On May 14, 2010, DC Comics filed a related lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster, the Siegel heirs, their attorney Marc Toberoff and certain companies that Mr. Toberoff controls. The lawsuit asserts a claim for declaratory relief concerning the validity and scope of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs, which, together with the termination notices served by the Siegel heirs described above, purports to preclude DC Comics from creating new Superman and/or Superboy works for distribution and sale in the United States after October 26, 2013. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory relief with respect to, inter alia, the validity of various agreements between Mr. Toberoff, his companies and the Shuster and Siegel heirs, and asserts claims for intentional interference by Mr. Toberoff with DC Comics' contracts and prospective economic advantage with the Shuster and Siegel heirs, for which DC Comics seeks monetary damages. On September 3, 2010, DC Comics filed an amended complaint and on September 20, 2010, defendants filed motions to strike certain causes of action and dismiss the amended complaint under California and federal laws. On April 4, 2007, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against CNN America Inc. (“CNN America”) and Team Video Services, LLC (“Team Video”). This administrative proceeding relates to CNN America's December 2003 and January 2004 terminations of its contractual relationships with Team Video, under which Team Video had provided electronic newsgathering services in Washington, DC and New York, NY. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, under which Team Video's employees were unionized, initially filed charges of unfair labor practices with the NLRB in February 2004, alleging that CNN America and Team Video were joint employers, that CNN America was a successor employer to Team Video, and/or that CNN America discriminated in its hiring practices to avoid becoming a successor employer or due to specific individuals' union affiliation or activities. The NLRB complaint seeks, among other things, the reinstatement of certain union members and monetary damages. On November 19, 2008, the presiding NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a non-binding recommended decision, finding CNN America liable. On February 17, 2009, CNN America filed exceptions to this decision with the NLRB. On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and several other programming content providers (collectively, the “programmer defendants”) as well as cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”), alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or “à la carte”) basis. In an order dated October 15, 2009, the court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. On October 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, and, on July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 10, 2009, Anderson News L.L.C. and Anderson Services L.L.C. (collectively, “Anderson News”) filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several magazine publishers, distributors and wholesalers, including Time Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an antitrust conspiracy against Anderson News, as well as other related state law claims. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages. On August 2, 2010, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and on, October 25, 2010, the court denied Anderson News' motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. On November 8, 2010, Anderson News filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 10, 2011, Charlie Sheen and 9th Step Productions (collectively, “Sheen”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against WB Studio Enterprises, Inc. (“WB Studios”), a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and Chuck Lorre and Chuck Lorre Productions, the co-creator and co-executive producer of the television series Two and a Half Men. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts several causes of action in connection with WB Studios' termination of Sheen's contract for the Two and a Half Men series, including breach of contract claims and intentional interference tort claims. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks monetary damages of $100 million, among other damages in unspecified amounts. WB Studios, through its division Warner Bros. Television, is seeking to arbitrate both the plaintiffs' claims and WB Studios' claims before JAMS, Inc. (“JAMS”), and on March 7, 2011 JAMS commenced arbitration. On June 15, 2011, the court denied Sheen's motion to stay arbitration, granted WB Studios' motion to refer the determination of arbitrability of all but one of Sheen's claims to the arbitrator, and stayed the one claim pending final determination of the matters referred to the arbitrator. On July 18, 2011, the arbitrator confirmed the arbitrability of the claims referred to the arbitrator. The Company intends to defend against or prosecute, as applicable, the matters described above vigorously. The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal claims when the Company determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters. For matters disclosed above for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company has estimated a range of possible loss. The Company believes the estimate of the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such matters is between $0 and $130 million at June 30, 2011. The estimated aggregate range of possible loss is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions. The matters represented in the estimated aggregate range of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and claims, the Company often cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. Income Tax Uncertainties During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded net incremental income tax reserves of approximately $71 million. Of the $71 million additional income tax reserves, approximately $33 million would affect the Company's effective tax rate if reversed. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded interest reserves related to the income tax reserves of approximately $33 million. In the Company's judgment, uncertainties related to certain tax matters are reasonably possible of being resolved during the next twelve months. The effect of such resolution, which could vary based on the final terms and timing of actual settlements with taxing authorities, is estimated to be a reduction of recorded unrecognized tax benefits ranging from $0 to $32 million, most of which would affect the Company's effective tax rate.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments

Six Flags

In connection with the Company's former investment in the Six Flags theme parks located in Georgia and Texas (collectively, the “Parks”), in 1997, certain subsidiaries of the Company (including Historic TW and, in connection with the separation of Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”) in 2009, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) agreed to guarantee (the “Six Flags Guarantee”) certain obligations of the partnerships that hold the Parks (the “Partnerships”) for the benefit of the limited partners in such Partnerships, including: annual payments made at the Parks or to the limited partners and additional obligations at the end of the respective terms for the Partnerships in 2027 and 2028 (the “Guaranteed Obligations”). The aggregate undiscounted estimated future cash flow requirements covered by the Six Flags Guarantee over the remaining term (through 2028) are approximately $1.0 billion (for a net present value of approximately $410 million). To date, no payments have been made by the Company pursuant to the Six Flags Guarantee.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (formerly known as Six Flags, Inc. and Premier Parks Inc.) (“Six Flags”), which has the controlling interest in the Parks, has agreed, pursuant to a subordinated indemnity agreement (the “Subordinated Indemnity Agreement”), to guarantee the performance of the Guaranteed Obligations when due and to indemnify Historic TW, among others, if the Six Flags Guarantee is called upon. If Six Flags defaults in its indemnification obligations, Historic TW has the right to acquire control of the managing partner of the Parks. Six Flags' obligations to Historic TW are further secured by its interest in all limited partnership units held by Six Flags.

In connection with Six Flags' emergence from bankruptcy, on April 30, 2010, a Time Warner subsidiary (TW-SF LLC), as lender, entered into a 5-year $150 million multiple draw term facility with certain affiliates of the Partnerships, as borrowers, which can be used only to fund such affiliates' annual obligations to purchase certain limited partnership units of the Partnerships. Any loan made under the facility will mature 5 years from its respective funding date. No loans were made under the facility in 2010 or 2011. The facility will expire on April 30, 2015, unless it terminates earlier upon election by the borrowers or due to the acceleration or certain refinancings of Six Flags' secured credit facility.

Because the Six Flags Guarantee existed prior to December 31, 2002 and no modifications to the arrangements have been made since the date the guarantee came into existence, the Company is required to continue to account for the Guaranteed Obligations as a contingent liability. Based on its evaluation of the current facts and circumstances surrounding the Guaranteed Obligations and the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement, the Company is unable to predict the loss, if any, that may be incurred under these Guaranteed Obligations and no liability for the arrangements has been recognized at June 30, 2011. Because of the specific circumstances surrounding the arrangements and the fact that no active or observable market exists for this type of financial guarantee, the Company is unable to determine a current fair value for the Guaranteed Obligations and related Subordinated Indemnity Agreement.

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in or parties to various legal claims, actions and proceedings. These claims, actions and proceedings are at varying stages of investigation, arbitration or adjudication, and involve a variety of areas of law.

On October 8, 2004, certain heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of the creators of the “Superman” character, filed suit against the Company, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks an accounting and demands up to one-half of the profits made on Superman since the alleged April 16, 1999 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of one-half of the rights to the Superman character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. Plaintiffs have also asserted various Lanham Act and unfair competition claims, alleging “wasting” of the Superman property by DC Comics, and the Company has filed counterclaims. On March 26, 2008, the court entered an order of summary judgment finding, among other things, that plaintiffs' notices of termination were valid and that plaintiffs had thereby recaptured, as of April 16, 1999, their rights to a one-half interest in the Superman story material, as first published, but that the accounting for profits would not include profits attributable to foreign exploitation, republication of pre-termination works and trademark exploitation. On October 6, 2008, the court dismissed plaintiffs' Lanham Act and “wasting” claims with prejudice, and subsequently determined that the remaining claims in the case will be subject to phased non-jury trials. On July 8, 2009, the court issued a decision in the first phase trial in favor of the defendants on the issue of whether the terms of various license agreements between DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. were at fair market value or constituted “sweetheart deals.” On May 17, 2011, the court certified certain liability issues for interlocutory appeal and stayed proceedings pending that appeal.

On October 22, 2004, the same Siegel heirs filed a related lawsuit against the same defendants, as well as Warner Communications Inc. and Warner Bros. Television Production Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs claim that Siegel was the sole creator of the character Superboy and, as such, DC Comics has had no right to create new Superboy works since the alleged October 17, 2004 termination by plaintiffs of Siegel's grants of rights to the Superboy character to DC Comics' predecessor-in-interest. This lawsuit seeks a declaration regarding the validity of the alleged termination and an injunction against future use of the Superboy character. On March 23, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on termination, denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and held that further proceedings are necessary to determine whether the Company's Smallville television series may infringe on plaintiffs' rights to the Superboy character. On July 27, 2007, upon the Company's motion for reconsideration, the court reversed the bulk of its March 23, 2006 ruling, and requested additional briefing on certain issues, on which a decision remains pending.

On May 14, 2010, DC Comics filed a related lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster, the Siegel heirs, their attorney Marc Toberoff and certain companies that Mr. Toberoff controls. The lawsuit asserts a claim for declaratory relief concerning the validity and scope of the copyright termination notice served by the Shuster heirs, which, together with the termination notices served by the Siegel heirs described above, purports to preclude DC Comics from creating new Superman and/or Superboy works for distribution and sale in the United States after October 26, 2013. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory relief with respect to, inter alia, the validity of various agreements between Mr. Toberoff, his companies and the Shuster and Siegel heirs, and asserts claims for intentional interference by Mr. Toberoff with DC Comics' contracts and prospective economic advantage with the Shuster and Siegel heirs, for which DC Comics seeks monetary damages. On September 3, 2010, DC Comics filed an amended complaint and on September 20, 2010, defendants filed motions to strike certain causes of action and dismiss the amended complaint under California and federal laws.

On April 4, 2007, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against CNN America Inc. (“CNN America”) and Team Video Services, LLC (“Team Video”). This administrative proceeding relates to CNN America's December 2003 and January 2004 terminations of its contractual relationships with Team Video, under which Team Video had provided electronic newsgathering services in Washington, DC and New York, NY. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, under which Team Video's employees were unionized, initially filed charges of unfair labor practices with the NLRB in February 2004, alleging that CNN America and Team Video were joint employers, that CNN America was a successor employer to Team Video, and/or that CNN America discriminated in its hiring practices to avoid becoming a successor employer or due to specific individuals' union affiliation or activities. The NLRB complaint seeks, among other things, the reinstatement of certain union members and monetary damages. On November 19, 2008, the presiding NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a non-binding recommended decision, finding CNN America liable. On February 17, 2009, CNN America filed exceptions to this decision with the NLRB.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and several other programming content providers (collectively, the “programmer defendants”) as well as cable and satellite providers (collectively, the “distributor defendants”), alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a “bundled” basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or “à la carte”) basis. In an order dated October 15, 2009, the court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. On October 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, and, on July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 10, 2009, Anderson News L.L.C. and Anderson Services L.L.C. (collectively, “Anderson News”) filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several magazine publishers, distributors and wholesalers, including Time Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, Time/Warner Retail Sales & Marketing, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an antitrust conspiracy against Anderson News, as well as other related state law claims. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages. On August 2, 2010, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and on, October 25, 2010, the court denied Anderson News' motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. On November 8, 2010, Anderson News filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On March 10, 2011, Charlie Sheen and 9th Step Productions (collectively, “Sheen”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against WB Studio Enterprises, Inc. (“WB Studios”), a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and Chuck Lorre and Chuck Lorre Productions, the co-creator and co-executive producer of the television series Two and a Half Men. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts several causes of action in connection with WB Studios' termination of Sheen's contract for the Two and a Half Men series, including breach of contract claims and intentional interference tort claims. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks monetary damages of $100 million, among other damages in unspecified amounts. WB Studios, through its division Warner Bros. Television, is seeking to arbitrate both the plaintiffs' claims and WB Studios' claims before JAMS, Inc. (“JAMS”), and on March 7, 2011 JAMS commenced arbitration. On June 15, 2011, the court denied Sheen's motion to stay arbitration, granted WB Studios' motion to refer the determination of arbitrability of all but one of Sheen's claims to the arbitrator, and stayed the one claim pending final determination of the matters referred to the arbitrator. On July 18, 2011, the arbitrator confirmed the arbitrability of the claims referred to the arbitrator.

The Company intends to defend against or prosecute, as applicable, the matters described above vigorously.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for legal claims when the Company determines that a loss is both probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of any loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued for such matters.

For matters disclosed above for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company has estimated a range of possible loss. The Company believes the estimate of the aggregate range of possible loss in excess of accrued liabilities for such matters is between $0 and $130 million at June 30, 2011. The estimated aggregate range of possible loss is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions. The matters represented in the estimated aggregate range of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and claims, the Company often cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

Income Tax Uncertainties

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded net incremental income tax reserves of approximately $71 million. Of the $71 million additional income tax reserves, approximately $33 million would affect the Company's effective tax rate if reversed. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded interest reserves related to the income tax reserves of approximately $33 million.

In the Company's judgment, uncertainties related to certain tax matters are reasonably possible of being resolved during the next twelve months. The effect of such resolution, which could vary based on the final terms and timing of actual settlements with taxing authorities, is estimated to be a reduction of recorded unrecognized tax benefits ranging from $0 to $32 million, most of which would affect the Company's effective tax rate.