It was a good discussion, the lede turned out well, and the 12,000-word story ended up winning us a nice prize.

We don't do that stuff anymore—summoning groups of people to obsess over the fine points of storytelling. If we're lucky enough to get a long-form story from one of our freelancers, we edit it in a vacuum, in between blog posts and tweets. Hopefully it'll make sense once it hits the paper and the Web.

Oh well.

There's not much to lament here. Moving from a weekly frequency to one that refreshes washingtoncitypaper.com many, many times per day has been a blast. Perhaps the greatest input-output machine civilization has ever seen, the Web rewards news, original thought, and finely articulated outrage. When we manage to pull off any of those things, the feedback is immediate and engaging. Compare that to the grind of yore, in which we'd drop a big stack of words on the public every Thursday. Those stories would routinely "bounce like a box of rocks," in the words of a former colleague.

Of course, we still do put out a weekly paper—it's just that it rarely has that gaping cover hole and often has content republished from our Web site. Though the double-platform world often feels tyrannical, it's more often exhilarating. Anything that demands more writing, more editing, more riffing on headlines, more collaboration with the staff—that's more fun for me.

The Boilerplate Editor Farewell Letter requires at least several expressions of gratitude, and who am I to break this particular mold? So here goes.

Thanks to our readers. Without you, we wouldn't have this shaky business model that we've been trying to fix for several years now. I've closely observed you in cafes, restaurants, and Chipotle, grabbing Washington City Paper and flipping straight to the ads and the syndicated content with which my editorial staff and I have nothing to do. Yet I still love you. You are motivated, smart, clever, and hip people, though I'd appreciate it if you showed more of those attributes in the comments section.

Thanks to my sources. Yesterday marked the end of the coverage of local media under this byline. Over eight years, I've written about many local outlets, including the Washington Times, the Examiner, the Washingtonian, the InTowner, the Northwest Current and so on. The preoccupation of the coverage, though, has been the Washington Post, an outfit that's one of the easiest conversation starters in the region. In recent months, I've had numerous discussions with friends in the industry, and the feedback I get about the paper is pretty uniform: The Post has dropped to a new low, it's missing key stories, it's boring, it's [insert other pejorative comment here]. There's no question that the newsroom has lost some bandwidth via four buyouts and general attrition. Yet it remains the greatest bargain in the household budget of my family—and we are aggressive Costco shoppers. How do I reach this clinical determination? Easily: There's a stack of old Post sections sitting on my bedstand; they represent all the stuff that I didn't get a chance to read in the morning before rushing out, plus all the stuff I didn't read on the Web during work. I try to plow through them before I fall asleep at night, and I never make it through the pile. The point here is that the Post is giving me more interesting stories—coverage I really want to read—than I can possibly digest. So there.

Before I started covering the Post, I wondered how I'd get sources. A friend told me, "They'll help you," referring to staffers at the paper. He was right—Post journalists, for the most part, welcome scrutiny of their work. Despite my rantings about the Brauchli Doctrine, named for current Executive Editor Marcus, the paper remains a transparent and accountable place. To all the people at the paper who have trusted me with their accounts of internal deliberations and a fistfight, un abrazo.

Thanks to my colleagues. This is the part I really can't write without breaking down, so I gotta call it a day. Plus, it's a Friday afternoon and the audience for this thing is dying. I'm just going to post it—no updates or followups this time.

Lesson: Stay away from categorical negatives at all costs. And when you do use them, make sure you have ironclad sourcing behind them.

Yesterday's Washington Post contained a nervy categorical negative. The story in question was a feature on the love affair between former NBA star and current Sacramento Mayor Kevin "KJ" Johnson and D.C. public schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Written by the prolific and wonderful Wil Haygood, it was a timely and well told piece, full of insights on this now-very-public relationship.

Yet it stopped me dead in my tracks when it vouched for KJ's bona fides in the fidelity department. The fleet-footed point guard spent 12 seasons in the NBA, and here's how the story characterized his romantic record over that period:

"Unlike some, he was no womanizer in the NBA."

Now that's a whopper of a categorical negative. Saying someone didn't fool around over more than a decade in the NBA is like saying someone went to a beer festival and had nothing to drink. The NBA culture of fucking everything in sight is too well established to belabor here.

So what testimony does the Post display for this stunning contention? That of KJ's mom: "He had always said it was too hard in the NBA with all the traveling to have a serious relationship," the mother is quoted as saying.

Time to take this thing apart, piece by piece.

No. 1: The quote from the mother doesn't even support the contention that KJ wasn't a womanizer. In fact, it supports the possibility that he was. After all, if it's too hard to have a "serious relationship" in the NBA, what the hell do you do? Right: You womanize.

No. 2: Since when does a journalist rely on a mom to substantiate whether her son is a good man? Sydney Trent, Haygood's editor on the piece, responded as follows when asked about the reliance on KJ's mom: "While we quoted his mother we also verified the information from other sources."

And then, under a subhed that reads, "Negative Publicity," Haygood delves into some events that occurred at the St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit that founded to create a network of charter schools. Haygood writes the following:

Then came the darkness: The local press wrote about a 1995 case in Phoenix in which a 16-year-old accused Johnson of fondling her in a sexual manner. Police declined to bring charges following an investigation. In 2008, there was a similar allegation made against Johnson by a high school student at his St. Hope Sacramento High School. Rhee considered herself familiar with the inner workings of St. Hope High and didn't believe the charges against Johnson.

"It was a hard thing for me," she says. "I actually knew firsthand about the accusations. I knew them not to be true. Kevin just said, 'If people want to throw stones, let them.' " Johnson's accuser later recanted and no charges were filed.

There's no way Johnson could have asked for a more favorable treatment of these events. As City Desk reported last November, the details of the St. Hope episode raised far more questions about the protagonist than Haygood even comes close to acknowledging. Here's a more definitive abridgment:

Rhee didn't merely "consider herself familiar" with the "inner workings" of St. Hope. Oh no, that way understates her role in KJ's alleged misdeeds. According to a federal investigation into shoddy management practices at St. Hope, Rhee performed "damage control" when KJ came under fire. When inappropriate touching complaints against KJ surfaced, for example, Rhee essentially pulled an Al Haig, telling a school worker that "she was making this her number one priority and she would take care of the situation." After that, the administrator discovered that KJ's lawyer had contacted the woman who'd accused KJ of the sexual misconduct, and the accuser dropped the complaint.

In perhaps the most blatant instance of whitewashing, Haygood's story suggests that there was only one instance in which Johnson stood accused of inappropriate sexual moves at St. Hope. In fact, the allegations form a much larger, stinkier pile than that. Three separate instances of KJ advances appear in the federal report. Here are excerpts from the investigation (Note: the excerpts refer to "members," code for members of AmeriCorps, the national volunteer group that had placed workers in St. Hope):

Accuser No. 1:

One Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 19 hereto), reported that, in the February/March 2007 time frame, she was entering grades into the SAC High database system per Mr. Johnson's instructions at the St. HOPE office at night, purportedly as part of her AmeriCorps service. [REDACTED] contacted Mr. Johnson to inform him that she had completed the grades and wanted him to review them. About 11:00 pm, Mr. Johnson arrived at St. HOPE and instructed [REDACTED] to gather her things and come with him. Mr. Johnson drove to [REDACTED] apartment, which is managed by St. HOPE Development and houses its AmeriCorps Members, purportedly so that they could review the students' grades. While in [REDACTED], in which another AmeriCorps Member had a separate bedroom, Mr, Johnson laid down on [REDACTED's] bed, [REDACTED] sat on the edge of the bed to show him the grades, at which time Mr. Johnson "layed down behind me, cupping his body around mine like the letter C. After about 2-3 minutes or so, I felt his hand on my left side where my hip bone is." Further, although not detailed in her written statement, [REDACTED], during the interview, demonstrated, while explaining, that Mr. Johnson's hand went under her untucked shirt and moved until his hand was on her hip.

The report alleges that Johnson subsequently tried to pay off the woman.

Accuser No. 2:

Another former Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 20 hereto), reported that, while attending a St. HOPE sponsored trip to Harlem, NY, from June 26 to July 16, 2006, Mr. Johnson, on three occasions, "brushed [her] leg with his hand," including once "flip[ingj up the edge of her skirt. Other times, she stated, Mr. Johnson kissed her cheek, brushed up against her as he walked past, and massaged her shoulders. ([REDACTED] reported another incident that occurred in Sacramento, CA, in which Mr. Johnson touched [REDACTED's] inner thigh with his hand while enroute to a restaurant. [REDACTED] said she did not report the incidents to AmeriCorps officials at that time because she feared she would be terminated from the program and because Mr. Johnson was assisting her in obtaining acceptance into the United States Military Academy, where she subsequently enrolled.

Accuser No. 3:

In addition, former SAC High teacher Mr. Erik Jones (Ex. 12 hereto) reported that a former AmeriCorps Member, [REDACTED], reported to him, sometime in 2007, that, while at SAC High, Mr. Johnson had inappropriately touched her. Mr. Jones stated that [REDACTED] had reported that Mr. Johnson started massaging her shoulders and then reached over and touched her breasts. (Attempts to interview [REDACTED] have been so far unsuccessful.)

How could the Post have simply overlooked this publicly available testimony? When asked about the wider body of evidence against KJ at St. Hope, Trent responds: "The accusations were investigated by police and Johnson was exonerated. We made decisions that balance fairness and space."

There's every reason to chronicle this fascinating relationship—this city has needed an authoritative take on the matter for some time now. Bits and pieces in gossip columns do only so much to fill out the tale. Yet why suppress the most delicious parts? Why not put it to Rhee: A federal report cites three instances of inappropriate sexual behavior by your fiance toward young women. What say you?

The Washington Post has a visa problem.

Last year, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli hired foreign correspondent Andrew Higgins to bolster the paper's coverage of China. Higgins, a veteran reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was a phenomenal get—he speaks fluent Mandarin and covered the Middle Kingdom in the late '80s, a tour that included eyewitness reporting on the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Yet the Post hasn't been able to place Higgins in China, on account of Beijing's apparent refusal to issue the reporter a visa. Though details on the visa situation are scarce, the paper is deploying all its chits toward a resolution. According to sources, Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald Graham has reached out to Dr. Henry Kissinger in an attempt to add some juice to its lobbying efforts.

Graham referred an inquiry on the matter to Brauchli; Brauchli was stuck in high-level editorial meetings and couldn't talk; Kissinger is traveling to Asia—he's Kissinger after all!—and thus couldn't get right on the phone with City Desk; an inquiry to the Chinese Embassy is pending.

Foreign Editor Douglas Jehl had this to say about the process: "We continue to talk to the Chinese embassy about our desire to get permanent accreditation for Andy Higgins to work in China. He is a wonderful writer and a great correspondent and we would love to have him in Beijing covering China for us. The embassy has been very responsive to our requests."

Jehl also said that the Post is pleased that Beijing granted Higgins a temporary visa to cover the China leg of President Obama's trip to Asia last November.

Higgins' issues with Chinese authorities go way back. He co-authored a book on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Then, in 1991, he was expelled from the country. The offense? Doing his job. According to a New York Times account of the incident, Higgins "reported on a confidential Chinese document that discussed the suppression of a nationalist movement in the Chinese region of Inner Mongolia. Security officials found the document in his luggage while he was on a trip within China."

At the time of his expulsion, Higgins was working for the British Independent. In the years since, he has covered China for other outlets, but only on short-term visas.

Until the Post scores a diplomatic breakthrough, Higgins will continue to serve as the paper's roving global correspondent. Since last summer, the British-born Higgins has gathered by-lines from Switzerland, Indonesia, and, most recently, the United Arab Emirates, among other spots.

The Post recently announced that it was sending veteran reporter Keith Richburg to China, though it's still planning on supplementing its reportorial muscle over there. Writes Richburg via e-mail: "I'm very excited to be heading back out to Asia, and I'm hopeful Andy's visa request will eventually be approved and he'll be joining me there as bureau chief in Beijing soon."

Exactly what Kissinger has done on behalf of the Post is unclear. One source close to the situation, however, reports that the big shot's involvement has boosted optimism among Posties about the situation.

Note: This post formerly had an update from the wrong Higgins—the gardener Adrian, not the foreign correspondent Andrew. Error thoroughly regretted. Also deleted a line about waiting for a comment from Andrew Higgins.

When asked if his decision was motivated solely by the pull of the Times, the 31-year-old Appelbaum responded, "I have loved working here. It's been a tremendous place to work. It's incredible in one journalism life to work at both places."

Appelbaum got a plum of a job at the Times. He'll be working an enterprise post on business and economics, from which he'll be able to "dig in deeply" on lots of issues. Not that the Post didn't afford him some enterprise moments as well: "I've had some enterprise opportunities here," he said.

The departure is a tough blow for Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, a biz-reporting veteran who has taken a personal interest in the reporting churned out by Appelbaum and his cohorts on the nat-biz beat. Brauchli didn't respond instantaneously to an inquiry about what significance Appelbaum's departure may hold for the Post.

The article points out how the two entrepreneurs have prospered under the Fenty administration. In general terms, we knew that already. What we didn't know was how. Take, for example, this excerpt from the piece, on how Fenty frat buddy Skinner has been approaching developers about doing biz with the city:

Since his return to Washington, [developer R. Donahue] Peebles said, at least two of Skinner's associates suggested that he hire Skinner, who they said could help him win District projects and gain access to the mayor and his top aides. Peebles said the associates told him that Skinner's fee was $10,000 to $20,000 a month.

Peebles said Karim approached him after an appearance on the Howard campus in 2007 and told him that Fenty was seeking to empower a new group of minority builders, including Karim. As African Americans, Karim and Skinner could benefit from city requirements that developers partner with minority-owned companies.

Karim, Peebles said, told him that "if I wanted to get to do a development deal with the District of Columbia government under Fenty, I'd have to do business with them and their circle, this new inner circle. He gave me this whole spiel about how it was a new day and how the old guys' day was up. Essentially, the message was I was going to need him."

Peebles said he was angered by what he considered a "flagrant pay-to-play overture." He rejected Karim's offer, he said, and refused to hire Skinner.

That's some choice reporting there, though you have to wonder: How reliable is Peebles as a source for a story that bashes Fenty—-a guy whose job Peebles covets. At least he's on the record, which is not the case for every developer who dishes on Skinner and Karim. Even so, a lot of great revelations in the piece.

How did Fenty respond to the allegations? By running away, of course. The Post had to try to ambush the guy after an event. Here ya go: "Fenty declined to talk in detail about his relationships with Skinner and Karim. In a brief interview as he left a news conference last month, he said his administration has awarded contracts properly."

So typical.

Post ombo Andy Alexander had his chance to lower the boom on the internal hullabaloo over Rahm Emanuel. You know, the one in which Dana Milbank and Jason Horowitz did some amazing rehab work for the White House chief of staff, only to sustain a roundhouse blow from Post columnist David Broder for shoddy reporting and failure to break news.

But Alexander came up a bit lame on this one: "I think Broder is partially right."

What it boils down to, wrote Alexander, is an overreliance on anonymous sourcing: "Broder said he was troubled by the number of anonymous sources in Horowitz's story. 'I think it's a general problem at this paper,' he said, adding 'it's a particular problem when it involves a matter of policy or personnel and readers are left in the dark about who's talking.'"

But "east of the river" isn't settling too well with relative newcomers to the area. Some of these people want to call the region "River East," an appellation that summons images of plush, new homes and green pastures. Champions of the new name have coalesced in an organization called (logically) River East Emerging Leaders (r.e.e.l.).

This is a gentrification battle. Old-timers don't like the idea of rebranding the area. The story quotes 35-year Anacostia resident Bessie Brown as saying, “I hate it.”

Though I am not a resident of the territory in question, I vote for "River East." Not on ideological grounds, but rather for the sake of simplicity. It's two syllables shorter. It's simpler. Change can be good for a name.

He just blasted the Bennett Report for "inconsistencies."

Now: He's mumbling about a process that "singled me out." "I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that don't want your legacy that you" punished Marion Barry.

"You don't want to be known as the person who took Mr. Barry's due process away."

Barry just said how much he loves Chairman Vince Gray. Ended by saying this whole thing is "unfortunate."

Gray asks what Barry meant when referring to "double standard." Barry responds that the council took a different action toward Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham when he landed in hot water via the troubles of his chief of staff, Ted Loza. Barry's complaining that he's getting harsher treatment.

Barry says issue of conflict of interest has "not been resolved." Can't base conclusions based on something that hasn't been resolved.

Gray asks for further discussion.

Vote on resolution: Unanimous. Barry recused himself.

Now they're talking about a resolution about policies on censuring councilmembers. Procedural stuff.

Ooo, now it's getting a bit interesting. Gray just outlined some procedures for censuring councilmembers, and Barry's asking some prickly questions about the whole thing. Barry's talking about his "reading of Robert's Rules" of Order and how it's situated vis-a-vis due process and so on. Getting a bit tense here. Gray is saying that there's a high degree of "congruence" between what they did in censuring Barry and what the new policies would outline. So Gray's saying that the censure of Barry proceeded very fairly today.

Barry is seizing upon this discussion to launch into another defense of his record and his place on the council. Here are some great little moments:

"I think I've been done a big injustice....[Despite being stripped of a committee chair], I'm still gonna work. I'm the jobs czar in this town....I'm going to every meeting," he said, going into an explanation of how hard he'll work to make sure that jobs are created, that employers are working on projects and so on. "In fact, I might be more effective at that than I was....I'm not at all down or dismayed about it. I've fought injustice all my life....The people of Ward 8 are going to get more out of me than ever before."

Yvette Alexander: Says she's excited and happy that Barry is still "motivated."

But here's what I am taking away: Let's move to 4-on-4 hockey full time. That's how the teams deployed in the overtime round in yesterday's game, and I found the more-open play to be exhilarating, not that that quality was in short supply in the final period or at other points in the game. It's just a little less crowded in the crease.

Moving to a consistent obsession of WIR, hey, where's my WaPo ombo column this week?

Post goes mathematical on the winter of all winters. The highlight of the presentation is this number:1,275,993. It's the total number of snow days enjoyed by students in the MoCo public schools. Could have an astounding impact on county SAT scores next year.

On other fronts, Colbert's kinda pissed at President Obama for failing to heed his advice of last year. OK, fine point perhaps, but I. King: Please give me some D.C. stuff. This whole federal thing doesn't sit in your wheelhouse!

The possibility that Brauchli and Quinn could have BlackBerried their way through this embarrassing episode, however, isn't going to stop the Washington City Paper Reenactors from putting their own spin on things.

According to a Post memo: "Wil will train his unique voice on the turbulent political landscape, the fragile economy, and the social and cultural changes that have gone unchronicled in America." Boy, that sounds almost like a nut graph from an enterprise story itself—just tack on an anecdotal lede, and we'll be ready for A01!

Full memo after the jump!

We are pleased to announce that Wil Haygood, one of journalism’s most gifted storytellers, will join the National Enterprise team headed by David Finkel.

Wil will train his unique voice on the turbulent political landscape, the fragile economy, and the social and cultural changes that have gone unchronicled in America. Wil’s work in Style, his current home, and elsewhere in The Post is well known to his colleagues and to our readers.

From Hurricane Katrina to a father’s fear for his Haitian family, from Alabama logger Clarence “Sunnyman” Primm to former White House butler Eugene Allen, Wil has brought originality and vividness to the subjects he has touched.

We expect Wil’s byline will continue to appear on the front page, in Style, and anywhere else stories can be told. He will join us as soon as he completes remaining Style assignments.

Kevin (Merida) David (Finkel)

So much for the Brauchli Doctrine!

Moving to the subject on the minds of all those who pay too much attention to the Washington Post, Brauchli e-mailed City Desk a statement saying the following about Quinn's execrable column, "The Party": "Sally and I have agreed that the column will return to what had been its original focus on faith, family and entertaining and will appear online at "On Faith," a section of washingtonpost.com that Sally guides."

So, the wrapup:

1) The column is killed from the print edition. That's not to say that if Quinn gins up an incredible piece, it won't appear in the dead-tree version. But at the Washington Post, at least, a move to online-only counts as a significant demotion.

2) Sources consulted on the matter indicate that Brauchli wouldn't have taken kindly to the column if he had reviewed it before its launch. He likely would have killed it. But the Post has long given a nice amount of leash to its section editors—in this case, Style co-honcho Ned Martel, who was utterly unreachable on this matter today, as was Quinn and many others.

3) The column was originally supposed to be something that focused on holiday cheer. As Quinn put it in her opener back in November: "I originally thought to do a column for 'On Faith' called 'The Sacred Table' about entertaining. When you think about it, there is a sacred quality to the sharing of a meal. Just think of Jesus's last supper as an example. The table can be a kind of altar, with a cloth, candles, wine and bread. Every religion has some kind of 'breaking of bread' associated with its rituals and traditions. Many Christian denominations even call the bread itself 'the host!'"

Somehow, the thing survived into the doldrums of January and the squalls of February—just long enough, in other words, for Quinn to lay down an enormous turd that'll eventually get mentioned in another story about how the Post has lost its way.

Update 1:45: Have made several calls to the very top crust of Post newsroom management. No one is responding just yet. Have sent an e-mail and placed a phone call to Marcus Brauchli, exec-editor of the paper and father of the famous Brauchli Doctrine. He's apparently tied up in meetings till after 4 p.m., which could mean that he's just really busy or that's a ruse! to disguise another episode of the Brauchli Doctrine.

A newsroom source at the Washington Post has just confirmed that the very survival of Sally Quinn's dreadful column, "The Party," has been the topic of several high-level discussions at the paper this week. The talks follow a column penned by Quinn last Friday, in which she laid out all the reasons for a wedding-scheduling snafu in her family. The column was a response to some negative stories written about how the date of the wedding of Quinn's son, Bradlee Quinn Quinn Bradlee, coincided with that of Quinn's husband's granddaughter. A decision on the fate of the column has reportedly escalated all the way to Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. We're headed there now.

We will have more very soon.

When Robert S. Bennett last Tuesday unfurled his findings on the transgressions of Ward 8 Councilmember Marion S. Barry, he ran into a stone wall. Accused of unethically steering a contract to his girlfriend, among other serious allegations, Barry contended that he couldn't have broken rules that didn't exist. "I'm a different kind of councilmember," he said, defending his actions as necessary to leading the city's poorest ward.

No contrition whatsoever.

One week later, the sense of denial has ebbed, and into the mix has creeped some remorse. "I should have known better," said Barry at one point in his remarks at a 2 p.m. press conference today at the Union Temple Baptist Church in historic Anacostia.

That slight admission of culpability was actually one of the few ad-libbed remarks that Barry made at the presser. The rest came off a prepared statement that Barry delivered before leaving without answering substantive questions from reporters. Here are some highlights of the proceedings, as reported by Loose Lips columnist Mike DeBonis. In parentheses are the logical questions that would have been asked if Barry had been accepting them.

Here are some snippets from the performance: "I serve and represent a community that is in distress both economically and otherwise....a community that is resource-poor." (Then why steer a contract to a girlfriend and also endow hastily created nonprofits with city money?)

"Therefore, a councilmember who represents such a ward has to be more than just a legislator. He has to push for resources and to demand quality city services. He has to help uplift the people of the ward and give them a sense of hope." (How does steering a contract to a girlfriend supply hope?)

"Even though there was no violation of conflict of interest, there was a violation of law of good sense and law of sound judgment....I should have known that even though there is no law against it, it didn't look good. It raises too many questions." (Are you just now coming to this conclusion?)

At this point, Barry acknowledged that he should have either ended the relationship and continued the contract or continued the relationship and ended the contract. "I did neither and, again, it was very, very poor judgment on my part. On the personal side, I should have given up much earlier on repairing a relationship that was not repairable. If I had used sound judgment at the very beginning, we would not have had July 4th." (You mean, we would have gone straight from the 3rd to the 5th?)

"I apologize for my actions and lack of sound judgment and for causing great embarrassment to the city and the city council. I am truly, truly sorry. I intend to work as hard as I can to help repair the damage and I am also committed to work even hard for the residents of Ward 8 and the city." (Have you had any discussions with D.C. Council Chairman Vince Gray or other councilmembers on what tone you needed to strike to avoid a censure resolution?)

One other tidbit from the presser: Barry lawyer Fred Cooke has drafted a response to the Bennett report, but the councilmember's camp would not share it with reporters.

On-the-scene reporting by Mike DeBonis; on-the-scene photo by Darrow Montgomery

Good point, and it hews to a theme. There are a lot of planks dear to Councilmember Fenty that have lost their appeal to Mayor Fenty. Sure, snow response is a good one. A better one, though, is transparency. The Ward 4 councilmember always chanted about it, always expected it of everyone else. Furthermore, he was equal to his words, because he, as councilmember, was perhaps the most press-accessible politician in town. That's all changed now, too, in ways that we've too exhaustively chronicled to regurgitate here.

Note to D.C. residents: Curbside recycling to resume starting Monday, following the snow recycling holiday. Man, those trucks are going to fill up fast after the all the paper and plastic had piled up over the past two weeks.

Colbert I. King: Great on D.C. issues, not so great on national issues. But in this column, he weaves them together nicely, talking about how differently Ward 8 Councilmember Marion S. Barry Jr. and Prez Barack Obama use the term "empowerment." King, sticking to a long tradition of his, blasts Barry for poorly representing his constituents: "If the D.C. Council votes to censure him for corruption, as is quite likely, and takes the next step of stripping him of his committee chairmanship, as is possible, Ward 8 representation will be relegated to an even more powerless position."

More Post stuff: Ombo Andy Alexander does his take on letter-writing to the Washington Post. This is one of those columns in which the ombo sorta takes it upon himself to explain the newspaper to readers. That is, I don't need this in my Sunday paper: All letters are edited, and the writers approve substantive revisions. "The copy desk fact-checks the letters and, working with the writers, fine-tunes them for publication." I enjoy the more investigative sort of ombo column, like this one, for example.

The buzz around town today is all about Sally Quinn's new low, aka a column in this morning's Style section in which she explains all about a wedding-scheduling snafu in her own family.

For all of you who have substantive things to worry about, this is what the piece was about: In recent days, there've been published reports about how the columnist's son, Quinn Bradlee, is scheduled to get married on the same day as the granddaughter of Quinn's husband, Washington Post legend Ben Bradlee. So Quinn used this week's edition of her Style column, "The Party," to rebut the negativity in those reports, and to assert that even a "so-called expert" (herself, that is) on the art of entertaining can slip up now and again.

The comments section has been downright abusive, as in: "TimPage1 wrote: When the brilliant and legendary Henry Allen had a dust-up at the Post with some reporters, he referred to their article as "the second worst piece ever printed in Style." This led to a heated question on the Washingtonian blog — what was the WORST piece ever printed in Style? There's a new champion today. Unbelievable."

Another glorious takedown comes from Tom Scocca and Choire Sicha, writing on the fabulous The Awl.

Of course, TimPage1, Scocca, Sicha, and myself are punching a pretty easy target here, and perhaps a target that loves nothing more than serving as a target. But the newsworthy thing about this particular abomination is not so much just how bad the column is, how self-unaware Quinn is, or anything like that. She can be as bad as she wants to be.

The real questions are for her editor, Style editor Ned Martel, and here's just a start:

1) Mr. Martel: Is this the sort of material you envisioned when you launched the column?

2) Mr. Martel: In the column, Ms. Quinn references "tensions" within her family, yet she never explains what those tensions were. If your columnist made a passing reference to tensions within any other family, or tensions within a company, or tensions within a book club, wouldn't you demand further explanation of those tensions?

3) Mr. Martel: How is it that there was no overlap on the guest lists for the two weddings under discussion here?

4) Mr. Martel: Your columnist is using the increasingly precious space in the print edition of the Washington Post to rebut criticism aired in other media outlets. Is this something that's encouraged at the paper? If someone attacks another columnist or reporter, is that space going to be available for further rebuttals? Could you carve out some column inches just for this purpose? And why are there no links to said criticism?

5) Mr. Martel: Your columnist slimes her husband in print, saying she instructed him "to put the date [of his granddaughter's wedding] on his calendar, and he did not. A warning to wives everywhere!" Did the husband have a chance to comment for the column?

6) Mr. Martel: Did you read this column before it was published?

Alas, Mr. Martel is not going to answer those questions. After ringing him up this afternoon, here's the conversation that ensued:

I asked Martel if I could interview him about the column. He responded, "I am going to decline to comment."

I told him it's just about the column, nothing terribly sensitive: "That is the way it’s going to be."

I told him that it's generally been the case that editors at the Post speak up in defense of their journalism, and Martel said, "I am going to forward your questions to Kris Coratti." Kris Coratti is the paper's spokesperson, and the last time we checked in with her, she was declining to tell us about the various editions that the paper prints each day.

Winding down the conversation with Martel, I told him that refusing to speak about what the paper had printed "stinks."

"Oh, sorry," he responded.

Another victory for the Brauchli Doctrine!