When the panel’s discussion turned to the anticipated unveiling of Apple’s tablet, Lack quickly injected some doubts about the hype. Pulling out an article from Wednesday’s New York Times – “It would have been awkward to pull out my Kindle for this” – Lack said he wanted to share his favorite quote: “Steve [Jobs] believes in old media companies and wants them to do well,” the article said, which cited an unidentified source who claimed to have seen the purported tablet device. Folding up the article and putting it back in his pocket, Lack laughed heartily along with the audience. “Yeah, and if you believe that, I’ve got some swampland I want to sell you in Flordia.”

SEE ALSO: Reality Coming Soon For Apple And Its Latest Creation

We caught up with Lack after his appearance and asked him about the benefits of being private, how BusinessWeek fits into the company’s multimedia goals and what he really thinks of Apple’s motives.

paidContent: A lot of the talk this week surrounding the Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) tablet suggests that it could be the savior for traditional media. You seemed to strike a more dubious note on stage.

Andy Lack: Well, I think that Apple’s made some money selling music on iTunes. That hasn’t translated into a lot of money for the record companies.

So would you be wary about partnering with Apple on the tablet, as opposed to the enthusiasm that many other media companies seem to be demonstrating.

First of all, the device isn’t even out yet. We gotta see it before we can talk about it. I will say that Apple creates great consumer experience around consumer devices. And so whatever they do, it commands attention. But I wouldn’t hazard an opinion at this point one way or the other.

Turning to BusinessWeek, which has now been officially part of Bloomberg for nearly two months now, you were asked earlier if the company would consider closing down the the print side and making it a web-only pub. What are your thoughts on that?

We’re not closing down the print edition. It’s got a lot of readers and it’s very influential. And we covet that, so why would we give that up? We feel that with all the success we’ve achieved on the professional side in terms of the terminal business, we have a great opportunity to build up a consumer-facing side. And we believe we can do that without diluting the professional side. So BusinessWeek is a great asset than can appeal to both. For example, a lot of our terminal customers are BusinessWeek readers and that’s an important area where the two intersect.

How does BusinessWeek fit into Bloomberg’s multimedia plans, overall?

Print is simply another platform for us. The magazine is important to the cross-platform efforts we’re trying to form – along with Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg TV, Bloomberg Radio and Bloomberg Mobile. We hope to bring more audiences to BusinessWeek.com and to the print publication.

You talked about the virtues and benefits of being a private company and not having to report quarterly earnings. Will that make a difference in improving BusinessWeek’s fortunes, by taking some of the immediate pressures off the magazine?

I think it will. We have a different business model (than McGraw-Hill). We want to take some of BusinessWeek‘s best journalists – and they have a lot of them – and give them more room to roam. We want them to produce some great content and not worry if they’re making a buck off it 30 days from now. Or even 130 days from now.

But aren’t there any concerns about the advertising outlook? BusinessWeek‘s ad pages were down 33.8 last year.

I think advertising’s going to come back with the comeback of the product. We’re going to be able to help them in that regard. Bloomberg’s sales force and its strength across multiple platforms will help move Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek in the right direction.