On Which Way L.A.? this evening, Warren Olney tackles the Tribune-Chandler fight by suggesting the LAT is "fading away," and asks whether this town even needs a paper.

Olney asked John S. Carroll, who quit as editor-in-chief last year in part because of pressure from Tribune to cut costs: "If it died, what would the cost be?"

Carroll answered in that clear, positive way he has that makes you think the guy should run for president.

"I think it would be high in a lot of ways. The L.A. Times is a unique voice west of Manhattan. It's the largest news-gathering operation west of Manhattan. There are other intangible benefits of a paper like the L.A. Times. Among other things is community pride. I think a lot of people in Los Angeles don't want to have their city represented by a second- or third- or fourth-rate newspaper. It reflects the image of a region" to have a first-rate paper.

If there's something that Angelenos care about it, it's their image. Nobody wants that image to look like this. So, we're guessing there's going to be all kinds of support from all kinds of people who don't actually read the paper (or any paper. Or, really, anything).

LAT editor Dean Baquet has promised not to obey any calls for cuts. And, yet, few people really believe the Tribune is going to sell this prize possession.

So is Olney right? Is the paper just going to die a slow death? And would it matter?