For a few years now, the big talk among newspaper biz types boiled down to a speculative question: When will your lines cross?

That, of course, is industry jargon, so let me explain. One of those lines represents the revenue that your paper gets from its print activities–that is, display ads, classified ads, and so on. The other line represents revenue that you get from online activities–that is, ads on your Web site.

Both of those lines, in previous years, have been headed in opposite directions, with the print line headed downward at a steady and troubling rate, and the online line headed upward.

All the talk about the lines crossing was hopeful talk about that magical moment when online revenues would essentially replace all the losses from the print model.

And then the second quarter of 2008 happened. That’s when newspapers around the country recorded their first drop in online revenues. As reporting in the New York Times, this basket of cash was down 2.4 percent compared with the same period last year, to $777 million.

Meaning that if the trend continues, these lines may never cross.

If this happens for another quarter or two, look for people in the industry to stop talking about the Internet as the future of the industry. Maybe some other platform will be invented in the next couple of years. May be a job for Al Gore.

Leonard Downie Jr. said he’d still be a busy fellow once he stepped down as Washington Post executive editor in early September. And here he is, just weeks later, in the prime spot in the Sunday Outlook section. Not reminiscing about his years atop the Post; not talking journo-ethics. Nope, he’s defending this fine city against all the attacks from the campaign trail. You know, the ones that ascribe all the great problems of America to Washington, D.C.

The signature line from Downie: “Large numbers of Washingtonians have dedicated much of their lives to real public service that does not involve the ego trips, trappings and hypocrisies of elective office.”

It’s a fine argument, and one that all locals need to read every four years, if only to leave something of a counterpoint in this otherwise counterpoint-less offensive. Funny thing, if there’s one notion that’s genuinely bipartisan these days it’s that Washington is a terrible place because of its partisanship.

Downie’s piece, however, does suffer from one colossal omission, having to do with the following sentence: “Never mind that the biggest mess in America today, the crisis in the financial markets, is largely the creation of the private sector, which has left it to Washington to clean up.”

“Largely,” here, is the key word, enabling the author to say, OK, maybe government shares some blame, but not the preponderance. The truth, as we’ve learned the hard way, is that this is the private sector teaming up with its toadies in the public sector to devise a financial sector virtually free of regulation. Government is way too culpable for this crisis to get anything approaching a bye.

And I must say that Downie had my civic pride in full blossom there at the end of the piece. But then he sneaked in a plug for his upcoming book, The Rules of the Game, and I kinda lost my municipal buzz.

*Just how desperate is James Gilmore in his battle for a Virginia senate seat?

*Do you believe that Obama is on the verge of a blowout victory?

*Blogger writes Pedestrian Plea, tells D.C. drivers to calm the f*** down.

*New Haven, looking great great in a photo illustration.

*I think we won’t soon hear the end of all this. It’s enough to make me want to skip town for the week.

*This’ll explain why Henry Paulson had such a nice weekend.

*OK, so the post is a week old, but it so embodies the humanity of the young professional class in the District.

*Maine: Preparing not for winter–but a hurricane?

*McCain is right: Could that have been the blunder of the 2008 campaign?

*The Examiner gives local theater some good play.

A lot of stuff happened this weekend, including the rush for a bailout package, the Skins’ victory, fine weather, and more mudslinging in the presidential race. But the event that’s keeping my attention is what allegedly happened out in western Maryland on Friday night. Dunbar Senior High School was out in Cumberland in a tilt against Fort Hill. The Crimson Tide was up, 14-8, when Coach Craig Jefferies pulled his players off the field, after they allegedly heard taunts including the N word out there on the field.

Now, the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association is conducting a probe to see what happened. The refs said they didn’t hear anything racial, and Fort Hill Coach Todd Appel says the same thing. The coach told the Washington Post that he’d spoken to one of the six black players on the 38-player roster, and the player said he’d heard no epithets. Dunbar players counter that the Fort Hill players were saying things under their breath.

I’ll be interested in what the probe turns up. I am not sure that a Maryland athletic association should be trusted to have the final word on the conduct of one of its members.

*fishbowldc rocks an item about WaPo aggregation tool.

*A good luck at the economics of the bubble from the NYT’s David Leonhardt

*Wes Pruden: Read at your own peril.

Can’t be a good day at the Washington Post’s National desk. Five days after the New York Times turned in a whopper of a triple-bylined piece on Sarah Palin’s tenure as mayor and governor in Alaska, the Post puts forth its own triple-threat presentation, courtesy of Amy Goldstein, Kimberly Kindy, and Steven Mufson.

The first tipoff on the mediocrity of this story comes from the headline: “Palin Attuned More to Public Will, Less to Job’s Details.” Hold on a minute–sure this isn’t a biography of W.?

And hold on another minute: The first tipoff on the mediocrity of this story actually comes from its placement, on page A04.

Then come all the platitudes, in big paragraphs:

The episode in April over the license fee, which went from $100 to $50, illustrates central aspects of Palin’s style of governing during her 21 months as Alaska’s chief executive. According to lawmakers, senior gubernatorial aides and others who have watched her closely, the woman chosen by Republican Sen. John McCain as his vice presidential running mate has little interest in political give-and-take, or in sustained working relationships with legislators or other important figures around the state. Nor has she proven particularly attentive to the details of public policy. “She’s not known for burning the midnight oil on in-depth policy issues,” said Larry Persily, a former journalist who was associate director of the governor’s Washington office until the spring.

And:

With her independent streak and her method of governing by leveraging her popular appeal, some who know Palin wonder privately how she would adapt as second-in-command in a McCain administration. Others can envision a natural role she might play. “She is going to be the deliverer of the message,” said Bitney, who is now chief of staff to the state House speaker, “as opposed to sitting down and hashing out the war strategy for the Mideast.”

Ah yes, the old “some…others” dyad–one of the sure signs that your piece is headed nowhere. And the balance of the piece doesn’t disappoint, dishing out a large dose of background on Alaska and other observations about the vp nominee’s political style.

There is, to be sure, a sweet tale of Palin working two BlackBerries in the middle of an important meeting.

So the battle of the titans on Palin’s Alaska record continues. To recap the fight: The Post scored early with pieces on an investigation into whether Palin improperly pressured a state public-safety official and on her collection of per diem expenses while staying at her home. Then came this exchange of three-bylined pieces.

Let’s hope the two outlets keep swinging–Alaska politics, after all, make for fun reading.

Journalists may whine about their shrinking profession with relative impunity. Layoffs, consolidation, the folding of publications, the dumbing-down of reporting, and the decline of investigative journalism, after all, are pretty legitimate things to gripe about.

But reporters and editors should be careful when called upon to complain about other things, and that’s where this week’s New York Observer story comes in. John Koblin set out to write about how print journalists weren’t impacting the 2008 presidential race as much as they should, and some pretty big names in the profession proceeded to fill up his notebook.

Here’s a quote from NYT boss Bill Keller:

But we do want our work to be noticed, and I’ve been repeatedly surprised at the rich, important stories that fail to resonate the way they deserve.

What has Keller so upset? Well, apparently, that three-bylined investigation of Sarah Palin that ran in this past Sunday’s paper didn’t bounce high enough for the big guy. “But this kind of work doesn’t dominate the discussion the way it might have in elections past,” said Keller.

Poor thing.

Apparently Keller and Michael Powell, one of the authors of that piece, have spent some time commiserating. When asked by the Observer if the more-than-1,000 online comments on the Palin piece don’t mean something, Powell responded, “The answer is no. It doesn’t get picked up the same way.”

Can someone explain to me what he’s talking about?

Clearly those titans at the Times need to scroll back a bit on this blog, which earlier this week credited the Palin story as a masterful mix of narrative and investigative styles, though the blog item was silent on the slight impact the story had made.

Let’s throw in some perspective here, just for fun: The Times splurged on the story, sending Powell and two other big-time journalists, Jo Becker and Peter S. Goodman, to Alaska in search of Palinia. They got to pursue the story unburdened by blogging requirements or other annoyances that these days weigh down less privileged journalists.

And they did amazing work, unearthing evidence of the vp nominee’s cronyistic and often petty ways, while pointing to her reformist credentials. And after they published their story, the Times Web site went nuts on the thing.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing to complain about here. No need to get nostalgic about how the story might have bounced in some more glorious, bygone media epoch. No need to blab to the Observer about how this wonderful piece deserved so much more loving attention. Yeah, and just what more do Keller and Powell want? Perhaps the entire country should pause in the middle of the greatest loss of paper wealth in history just to praise their Palin story.

If there’s one reason why the story didn’t land quite the way these guys wanted it to, it’s perhaps because it was so good and fair. In one breath, the reporters hammered this controversial politician for all manner of short-sighted and, indeed, anti-democratic gestures; in the next, they were crediting her for clamping down on lobbyists or shaking down oil and gas companies. Accordingly, the piece didn’t hand a case of red meat to either side in this campaign, keeping it on the sidelines in a season of partisan bickering.

That’s just fine, as far as I can see. What good journalist cares about impact anyhow? Isn’t that what marketing executives are for? The idea, as I’ve always understood it, is to put your best stuff out there, come what may. If the network anchors lead with it, great. If no one notices, well, too bad. You move on to the next story, trap shut.

Update: Just got a call from a very peeved Michael Powell, whom I called at the Times this morning but didn’t connect (He’s in Alaska). He said that he has no complaints about the new media environment and that by and large the Web has made journalism more fun and interesting. His comment to Koblin that’s cited in this entry, he said, references how bloggers with different ideological viewpoints react to mainstream pieces. It was not a gripe, he said–just an observation.

On Sunday, the East Coast media elite faced off over what the McCain campaign would have you believe is their favorite target. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times tossed big Sarah Palin investigations on their front pages. The Post’s piece, by Alec MacGillis, went provincial, focusing exclusively on Palin’s work as mayor of Wasilla. It was a nice narrative, deeply reported and rich with context. Here’s one of the money quotes, from a Wasilla politico:

“Sarah always did and still does surround herself with people she gets along well with…They protect her, and that’s what she needs. She has surrounded herself with people who would not allow others to disagree with Sarah. Either you were in favor of everything Sarah was doing or had a black mark by your name.”

MacGillis had fun with the podunk nature of Palin’s mayoral purview, drawing a vivid picture of just how little Palin actually controlled. The piece begins and ends with excerpts from minutes of Wasilla government meetings, for example:

“In September 2002, she presided over her last City Council meeting. The council took up an ordinance to ban sex shops. The police chief announced that Raymond Chiemlowski was promoted to sergeant. Keller “reported that traffic lights on Knik-Goosebay Road will be turned on soon and encouraged everyone to use caution while adjusting to the new traffic pattern.”

Nice touch there.

For all its charms, though, the Post piece clearly lacked the blow-me-away feel that the Times mustered on the same day. Titled “Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes,” the account draws both on Palin’s mayoral and gubernatorial records, pretty much delivering the final word on her management style. A huge nugget comes early in the story, when the Times people expose the attempt of a Palin subordinate to stop a blogger from blogging (on general principle, a really bad idea.) Here’s the money quote:

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the [Palin] assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Tough to beat that–though the NYT piece does. Check out this comment, from an old Palin associate:

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

There’s much, much more, of course. From a detailed account of Palin’s library censorship tendencies to her penchant for putting friends in high places–and unqualified friends at that–to her way of dealing with others–you’re going to want to read this one two or three times.

Part of the reason NYT got better results is that they sent more resources. Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman, and Michael Powell were all on the case. One thing they have in common is that they’re all great reporters. Another: They’re all former Washington Post reporters.

The Washington Post is ready with the latest in Bob Woodward’s probe of of the full eight years of the Bush administration. Haven’t read the book, just the first excerpt in the Post. Verdict: Not a lot of red meat for a Sunday excerpt. Best little tidbit was a top White House aide telling the prez about Iraq:

“It’s hell, Mr. President,” said deputy national security adviser Meghan O’Sullivan.

This took place around 2006, pre-surge, when things in Iraq were looking, well, like hell.

But outside of that rare glimpse into Bush administration truth-telling, Woodward’s working with a lot of bureaucratic goop in this bad boy. Sure, he clues us into a spat between Condi and a top military official, but the key revelation in this first installment is that Bush was seeking a strategic re-evaluation of the situation in Iraq during this 2006 time frame. Good spade work, Bob, but hardly memorable stuff.

*Who woulda thunk that Roger Federer would’ve made it to the U.S. Open final, given his struggles this summer? And who would’ve thunk that his opponent wouldn’t be Rafael Nadal?

*WashTimes on Palin’s post-convention coming-out.

*This is the guy you want to listen to when it comes to analysis of the Fannie-Freddie takeover.

*And let me just say this about Favre’s debut with the Jets. Indeed, green machine fans, you are 1 and Oh after barely squeaking out a vick over the Dolphins. It happened in part on account of the heroics of your new QB, who threw a vintage heave for a TD in the first half of this tilt. Don’t, however, get giddy. This is a guy who, I’ll predict right now, will toss at least five more INTs than TDs before the year is over or he’s benched, whichever comes first, in car-maintenance parlance. Just wait till he starts to feel a bit comfortable with the system, because that’s when he starts improvising, starts calling his own little plays in the huddle, sandlotting it. And that’s precisely when the defense swoops in, grabbing duck after duck after Favrean duck. I suppose you could look upon this year as Favre’s best chance to pad that NFL-record pick total.

With just one week to go before the back-to-back major-party conventions, a lot of journalists are catching up on their vacationing. I offer up this proof:

*The New York Times is fronting the news that the Kremlin is going to withdraw from Georgia, but is a bit worried about getting hung up in that terrible Atlanta traffic. Otherwise, check out the vid about how John McCain’s politics were “forged in a prison cell.”

*The Washington Post has published the winners of its travel photo contest.

*Los Angeles Times goes big with its feature “Secret Spots of the West,” a kind of “Escapes” for Angelenos.

*The Washington Times just talks more about Michael Phelps.

*And DCist is talking about what’s going on in other cities, just to complete the travel-theme.

A spot of news sure to please bike enthusiasts, lovers of art-rock, and managing editors alike: the New York Times reports that David Byrne, “cultural omnivore,” has rolled out a new line of bike racks across NYC, with whimsical designs geared toward the peculiarities of each neighborhood. My personal favorite: “Mudflap Tammy,” who racily graces the corner of 44th and 7th. Where does the bike go? I’m not quite sure. But I imagine I’d have a lot of fun finding out.

D.C., meanwhile, has some catching up to do. But who knows? Before too long, we might all be singing those infectious lyrics to “Hey Now”:

I wanna bicycle
I wanna popsicle
I wanna space face
Buy me a cherry face now

Hey now!
Hey now!
Hey now now!
Hey now!
Hey now!
Hey now now!

The Washington Post has got a photo gallery of the early skirmishes at Redskins training camp. The Skins are out there on the field early, and in the worst of the summer heat. Many other NFL teams open up practice later this week, amid a cooling trend.

Chapter 7 in the Chandra Levy series also hit the streets Sunday, and I am starting to withhold less and less judgment. I mean, whatever new stuff is in this episodic disaster is marginal. So marginal, in fact, that when I come across things that I think may be new, I check my memory in search of what I knew before the series. Most of the time, I can’t quite remember, but I do know this: The series has yet to tell me anything way above and beyond what I knew before, or at least enough to justify throwing multiple reporters on the thing for a whole year. I mean, the Post is verily boasting of sinking that much time into the thing. I’d think they may be embarrassed to admit as much.

Examiner profiles first gun registrant, saying that Amy McVey didn’t seem like the “typical” owner of a firearm. And the paper’s conservative editorial page slams Pelosi.

So what else is going on, aside from the heat?

Well, there’s former Washington City Paper Editor David Carr’s book, The Night of the Gun,” excerpted in the New York Times mag. Carr is a close friend, by way of disclosure, and I helped a bit with the book, so attach whatever weight you choose to my opinion that the book is a compelling page-turner.

What do smoking a cigarette outside the 9:30 Club and the recent “Access Hollywood” interview with Barack Obama’s family have in common? Read former City Paper editor David Carr’s column in today’s New York Times to find out–a good-humored look at what he calls “presidential blowback” (with a CP shout-out to boot).

Twelve parts? Mistakes in the investigation? Gary Condit?

Yeah, Washington Post put the region on time warp mode Sunday, introducing an investigative series on the unsolved murder of Chandra Levy, that most famous of Washington interns. In its own words, here’s how the Post justifies the spilling of so much ink:

The serial will show how the sensational nature of the media coverage quickly overwhelmed the investigation. It will expose the fleeting acts that later loomed large and will reveal undisclosed clues, meaningful and false: a DNA swab in a dark parking lot, Chandra’s last computer search, a conversation with a jailhouse informant who said he had the key to the case.

In the end, the serial will reveal how an enormous effort by the D.C. police, the FBI and prosecutors was undercut by a chain of mistakes, a misdirected focus and missed opportunities that allowed a killer to escape justice.

Trouble is, we pretty much knew that basic thematic outline. And this first chapter in the series is not much of a read for anyone who, well, has lived in this country for the past eight years or so: Remember that the Chandra case was not a local or regional story, but a national one–everyone who has cable is familiar with the narrative.

So the paper had damn well better have something more than just the revelation that the media attention overwhelmed the detectives. I’ll wait and see. But hold on–there’s one thing I am not going to play wait-and-see on, and it’s my up-to-hereness on interviews with Chandra Levy’s parents. I have nothing against them, and I feel terrible about what happened to them. However, over the past several years, I’ve heard plenty from them, plenty enough to need to hear no more. So you go ahead and listen to this interview clip that the Post posted; I’m not gonna.

The Washington Times has a pretty thorough presentation on the passing of beloved Tony Snow.

The New York Times throws tons of resources, with great results, at the meltdown of Fannie and Freddie.

Of course, yeah, I know, whatever: It’s been a week since Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon. Which means that historians still haven’t quite had time to anoint this one as the best title match ever. But check out the highlights, and perhaps you’ll agree.

And what about this whole Brett Favre bullshit? This fave of broadcasters everywhere has jerked around his team time and again. Now he wants back on the gridiron. On Sunday, a rally of Packers fans pressured team owners to reinstate Favre as the starting QB. But the team knows better and is going with the “final” word on the matter that Favre delivered in March, when he said he was retiring. Good on the owners: They watched that game in January, against my New York Giants. Favre effectively ended that tilt by throwing an INT. How fitting.

The Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild yesterday released a survey of salaries in the newsroom of the Washington Post. Most of the document is a snooze: A lot of editorial aides are earning salaries in the $30,000 range and a lot of reporters hover in high five-figure, low six-figure territory.

There is, however, one fun detail: Three employees in the category of “Reporter, Bureau Chief or Columnist” are pulling down between $230,000 and $239,000. As this this publication made clear last month, that salary is higher than the base pay of the paper’s tier of assistant managing editors.

So who are these three well-paid Posties? I’m guessing that two of them are Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, the ESPNers who have a leg up in just about any set of negotiations over compensation. Kornheiser, of course, took this year’s buyout offer.

The third?

Amanda Hesser is taking a buyout from the New York Times, which I’ve gotta imagine is going to totally screw up Amanda Hess‘ false positives on phone messages.