Q: You brought in Bryan Bender.

A: We brought him in on a contract basis because we needed to supplement our coverage, but that’s not a permanent expansion of the Washington bureau. So I think that’s a bit of an overstatement — a considerable overstatement. The other thing is, as I pointed out to you before, this was not a year in which all they did was cut. They did invest in the paper, improving the business section, improving the technology coverage, and improving our coverage of the communities where our readers live in west and south. Our intention, going into next year, is to continue those kinds of strategic investments that will improve the quality of the paper.

This paper has never been and never will be, in my view, a farm team for the New York Times. First of all, that suggests that people are going from here to the New York Times on a regular basis, and that they’re using this as a training ground. That’s not true. Yes, there are people who’ve gone from here to the New York Times just as there are people who have gone from other papers to the New York Times. But probably more people have gone from the Miami Herald to the New York Times, or the LA Times to the New York Times, than there have been gone from the Boston Globe to the New York Times. So, there’s nothing even close to a farm team.

The New York Times is not the Mother Ship. Okay? We didn’t come out of that ship. We don’t report back to that ship. We are no more owned by the New York Times paper than Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post newspaper. That’s owned by the Washington Post Company. We’re owned by the New York Times Company. The only difference is that we’re a newspaper and Newsweek’s a magazine. And it’s the same basic relationship.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the New York Times Company wants this to be an absolutely great newspaper and believes it can be and will invest in it to make sure that it is. I don’t think that anything that happened over the last year suggests otherwise. Everything that I know, everything that I’ve seen, suggests that they are determined to make this a great newspaper and a quality newspaper. And I’m absolutely confident about it. If I were not confident of it, I wouldn’t be here. I had some familiarity with the people who run the Times Company before I came to the Globe. I was very comfortable when I worked at the Times with those folks, and I am exceptionally comfortable with those people, their principles, their values, and their commitment to quality journalism now that I am at the Globe. And I just think that it’s very easy, it’s very glib to say those sorts of things. The only problem with it, it just doesn’t happen to be true. I think that has been demonstrated. I think it will be demonstrated next year and beyond.

Q: When the Focus section was cut, one of the things Matt talked about was a hope that sometime next year, if the economy gets back on track, that it will be replaced with some sort of an Ideas section. And I know that [deputy managing editor] Peter Canellos is actually brainstorming that. Is that going to happen?

A: I hope so. I mean, I can’t say to you definitively on that, but I’m very hopeful.

Q: Several people have told me that they find you somewhat aloof and quicker to criticize than to praise. As you know, you had some critics in Miami who said the same thing. How would you describe your management style?

A: That might be true. I hope not. I try to find occasions to praise people, and maybe those who might say that probably don’t know those instances where I’ve praised somebody for something. I don’t know that anybody’s actually keeping count. It’s certainly important to praise people, and I try to do that. I don’t think I fail to do that regularly. But if I see something that deserves criticism, I won’t hesitate to criticize, because it can be instructive. People also need to know what it is I don’t like, what I think needs to be improved.

Q: One person told me that the staff has to understand that the Times does things differently — you’re steeped in Times culture, and that perhaps before there was a little bit too much "boy, that was a great story" and a little bit too much "aren’t we all wonderful."

A: First of all, I’m not steeped in Times culture. That’s another myth. I was there a little over three years. That doesn’t make me a Timesman by any definition. I didn’t spend most of my career there, and I never thought that I would necessarily spend my entire career there. When a good opportunity came along in Miami, I did that. It was never my life’s ambition to just work at the New York Times.

I think I learned a few things at the New York Times. I think it’s important that we be honest with ourselves about the quality of our work. When it is exceptionally good, it deserves praise. And when it is not so good, that should be pointed out as well. I don’t believe in false praise. Praise can be devalued if it comes too often and it’s not merited. I think I’ve been very complimentary of our work after September 11, on September 11 and afterwards. I think we have done an extraordinary job, and I try not to throw compliments around like confetti just so everybody feels happy about it. I’m aware of instances at other newspapers where editors or publishers have done that. After a while, the compliments aren’t worth anything.

When I do compliment something now, people will recognize that I honestly, truly believe it. I probably don’t do it enough because I just get caught up in other things and you forget, and that’s unfortunate. And if someone feels slighted, I apologize. I’ll work on it. We all have our things that we need to work on.

Q: Boston has a reputation for being sort of an insular, inward-looking place where decades-old memories and grievances count for a lot. You’re the first outsider to be the editor of the Globe. What’s it been like for you? What have you done to try to get up to speed on Boston?

A: Before I got here, I’d read any number of books. I continue doing that. I think my reading over the next year or two will be exclusively about Boston, I imagine. On top of that, I’ve spent a lot of time not just talking to people on the staff but trying to get to know people in the community. I’ve gone to any number of breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and receptions. On top of that, I’ve held meetings in the office, and have gotten to know quite a few people in a very short period of time, and in a period where there were all sorts of other demands on my time as well. So, I’ve certainly made a very diligent effort to do that and continue to do so.

Q: The Globe has traditionally employed a lot of columnists even aside from the op-ed page, which I know doesn’t report to you. Do you think there are too many columnists in the paper? Might there be fewer as you move forward?

A: I guess I’m still thinking about it. I don’t think there are going to be any more, I’ll tell you that.

Q: Before September 11, the biggest media story of the year was what’s been called Wall Street journalism — a bottom-line orientation to keep media profits up for shareholders at the expense of covering the news. Of course, you left a Knight Ridder paper that was doing some serious cost-cutting in order to come here. Where do you come down on this?

A: I have thought about it, and I am concerned about the kinds of pressures that have been brought to bear on newsrooms. I don’t think that I’m saying anything profound by saying that. I don’t think that good journalism is impossible under these circumstances. I think there’s a lot of good journalism, in fact, being done.

While we’ve had some extraordinarily good editors in the past, some great leaders of the profession and people whom I admire and I think people rightly held up as great models for all of us, I think there’s also a risk of romanticizing the past. Not everything was so great about newspapers in the past, either. I remember a period — and I’m not that old, at least I don’t think I am — when newspapers didn’t have business sections, when newspapers didn’t have substantial coverage of health and medicine and science, when those kinds of subject areas were largely ignored.

I also think that perhaps there is a lot of good writing these days which newspapers don’t get credit for. There’s certainly been more attention paid to some other things that are important, and that is the design and graphics and the visual nature of a newspaper as well. I think newspapers as a whole are more accessible, in some ways more readable, and I think that we’ve made progress in any number of areas.

But there have also been things that have suffered. We talked a bit about foreign coverage. That is an area that has shrunk in many newspapers. That means probably that Americans know less about the rest of the world than they should. And whether they were paying attention to it in the past I have no idea, but at least it was available to them.

Q: You told [Los Angeles Times media reporter] David Shaw in the early days of this war on terrorism that the inability of journalism to explain the Arab and Muslim world was a real failure.

A: Right. I mean, a lot of people did, and it didn’t sit with a lot of people. There were projects about the Taliban and Afghanistan, about Osama bin Laden and the risk of an attack on the United States. People can point to those, and the newspaper can point to those as well. But in many newspapers, the news hole dedicated to foreign-news coverage has shrunk, and the staff dedicated to foreign coverage has shrunk. That doesn’t mean that all the foreign coverage of the past was necessarily so great, but there was a lot of good foreign coverage. And at least it demonstrated a commitment on the part of newspapers to have foreign coverage.

So yeah. I think the pressures now are great. It requires us to use all of our resources to the greatest effect. We can’t waste anybody. Everybody has to work up to their full capacity, and that’s the challenge of an editor these days. We can’t get better just by adding on, necessarily. We have to get better by using the resources that we have more fully.

Q: Do you think September 11 may have changed the media paradigm back toward more serious coverage of important news, or do you fear that over time we’re going to slip back toward an obsession with celebrity and trivia?

A: I guess there’s what I hope and there’s what I fear. So I hope that it has changed the paradigm. I hope we will be more serious as journalists. I hope we’ll recognize that what happens in the rest of the world is important to us, that we as a news organization should be dealing with matters of importance.

What I fear is what happened after the Gulf War. One would have thought that after the Gulf War Americans would recognize that what happens far away does have a direct impact on us and can potentially put at risk American lives and American interests. But after the Gulf War was over, people seemed to go back to their ordinary lives and not want to know that much about the rest of the world. I’ve seen certain publications rush to get back to celebrity journalism, publications and television shows, rush to get back to celebrity journalism as they detect that perhaps people have gotten bored with what’s happening in Afghanistan.

So I fear that there will be a return to that kind of journalism, but I hope there won’t be. I think that our greatest hope is with young people, for whom this has been a turning point. I think they recognize how serious the world is, that the world can be a dangerous place, that it can turn their lives upside down. And I think it has created a greater interest on their part in the news and in serious news. I wish it weren’t for these reasons. But that I think is a good thing.

Q: What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned in your career?

A: Well, I’m not sure I know how to answer that.

Q: What’s the biggest mistake you’ve ever made?

A: [Laughter.] I’m not sure I know. I’m not sure I would want to answer it if I knew.

Q: John Silber would have been governor if he knew how to answer that question.

A: Fortunately, I’m not running for governor, nor do I have any intention of doing so. The biggest mistake. I don’t know. I really don’t know.

Q: What do you see yourself doing five years from now?

A: Being here at the Globe. Try to continue making a better paper.

Q: So, do you see this as your career move? This is where you’re going to be for the rest of your career, or at least for a very long time?

A: You never know, but I have no other aspirations. I have no other plans. I would be absolutely content to be here five years from now or 10 years from now. I’m really not even thinking about it. It’s ridiculous. I just got here. And I can’t predict the future. This is an incredibly attractive job. It’s a big newspaper, has substantial resources, and has a large circulation. It’s in a place where you can have a lot of influence. A good portion of its readership have influence on national issues, so we have a great readership. And it’s in a great town, and what more can you ask? I’m absolutely content.

Q: You say it’s a great town. We like to think it is. What have you found particularly appealing about it? What have you been doing for fun?

A: Well, not enough. [Laughter] Not enough, actually. I’m still in temporary living quarters, and so a lot of things like my bike that I would have liked to have gotten on are not available to me. So, mostly on the weekends, I’ve just relaxed and read. I’ve been to the BSO. I’ve been to the MFA. I like to walk around neighborhoods and things like that. I like the sense of neighborhood, and I like the sense of people’s deep commitment to the city. I think that’s important.

Q: What’s the most influential book you’ve ever read?

A: In terms of management, I’ll mention one, and that is a book by Peter Drucker called Management. He talks a lot about what are called knowledge workers, that more and more employees are not employees in the classic sense of the past, but people who work with their minds. He talks a lot about motivates them, what drives them, what inspires them, what makes them happy, what makes them satisfied. And he talks a lot about the role of leadership in working with people like that.

He also talks about — it’s been a long while since I’ve read this book — but he talks a lot about the importance of management. Most people in the newsroom don’t think that managers do anything, and I understand that view because I had that view when I was a reporter. So it’s fully understandable, and I have great sympathy for that point of view. But in fact that’s not the case. There’s an important role for management in terms of maintaining focus, which we were talking about before, in terms of providing direction to an organization, in terms of setting a strategy, in terms of motivating people, setting goals, and having a lot of smart, committed, dedicated people who work with their minds and are independent thinkers who move in the direction you feel the organization should move.

Q: Who’s your hero?

A: You know, I told Editor & Publisher — they asked me that same question — that I don’t have one. I guess I have to apologize for not having a hero, but I don’t. I can’t think of one.

Q: I guess you’re not running for anything, because a politician would say well, I have to come up with one.

A: Sure, right. Right. I’d probably say "Abraham Lincoln" or something like that.

Read Dan Kennedy's story on Marty Baron.

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com.