JOANNE: And the kind of journalism that…as you know, you've become a popular topic of conversation among journalists.

SAM: Really? No shit.

JOANNE: Maybe you read some of the blogs about yourself.

SAM: No, never.

JOANNE: But I think the question really is, journalists believe that there is a reader service and a public service, that there's a public good…

SAM: And journalists are more than willing to tell you what they think you need to know. And to some extent, that's a valid position, but I certainly don't think it is the answer. And to the extent that you have journalists who are unwilling to listen and only want to talk, they really should give up journalism and become college professors.

JOANNE: It takes a lot of resources to pour into investigative reporting…and this is not just "How much did Sarah Palin spend on her wardrobe?" but serious investigative reporting that takes…could take months at a time that could take you down some dark alleyways that are not going to pay off. Is there a place for that? Is there a way to fund that, or are newspapers not the place for funding that any longer?

SAM: Well, you know, you were just talking to me a minute ago about the precipitous decline in advertising revenue. So the answer is that every piece of a newspaper has to be economically evaluated, because, in the end, we're not an eleemosynary institution, even though most of the newspapers have been run as one. I mean, how would I not challenge every cost, every decision, and basically look at the cost benefit, just like our government is supposed to do when it raises our taxes? I got to look at the cost benefit and say, "What's the benefit? What's the cost? Does this make sense?"

JOANNE: So at the L.A. Times, for example, which under a previous editor before you owned it won quite a few Pulitzer Prizes and really put a lot of effort into pieces that may or may not pay off, does that no longer make sense in the business model that we're talking about?

SAM: I haven't figured out how to cash in a Pulitzer Prize. There was a day when a newspaper put "Winner of Pulitzer Prize" on the front page, and people flocked to read the Pulitzer Prize story. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that that's the case today But I also think that there are scale issues. In other words, I think that if the goal is a Pulitzer, it's in the wrong place. In other words, we're not in the business of, in effect, underwriting writers for the future. We're a business that, in effect, has a bottom line. So as far as we're concerned, I think Pulitzers are terrific, but Pulitzers should be the cream on the top of the coffee. They shouldn't be the grounds. And I think there are a lot of scenarios in the newspaper industry where the entire focus is on Pulitzers. The entire focus is on becoming an international correspondent. I mean, I know that because our newspaper sent somebody to Kabul to cover the "Afghan Idol Show." Now, I know Idol is the No. 1 TV program in the world, but do my readers really want a firsthand report on what this broad looked like who won the "Afghan Idol" Show"? Is that news?

JOANNE: The "Afghan Idol Show"…I'd like to know what the broad looked like.

SAM: I'll send you a picture, okay? I mean, really, it's not a problem.

JOANNE: But you're talking about two different things here, though.

SAM: Why am I talking about two different…?

JOANNE: Because I think the essential question, what the Pulitzers get at, would be that…the way that newspapers had seen themselves, and I spent many years on a newspaper, was as a public trust. And, you're right, their finances were not put first. So I guess you're saying that that age is over and we need to be…

SAM: My question is real simple. As of last night, the entire market cap of the New York Times [Co.] was $1.2 billion. And my question to Arthur, who I think is out here someplace, is if you want to be a charitable trust, be a charitable trust. If you don't want to be a charitable trust, then you've got to focus on producing a return for investors' capital, and it's just that simple. It worked in the old days because you could be a public trust and you could do well for your shareholders because you had a monopoly, and monopolies are wonderful. I mean, I think competition is terrific, particularly for all those guys out there. Me? I like monopolies. I'm just sorry I waited 60 years to get into the newspaper industry because the 40 I missed were great.