Just shy of 4:00 pm today, a message went out to staffers at Washington Post HQ at 15th and L Streets NW: Employees may now retrieve copies of the Washington Post commemorative Obama edition in the lobby.

What ensued was a bum rush.

The area around the elevators on the fifth floor newsroom were jammed. You could only get on a car going up. Those going down were packed like a Japanese commuter train.

People took to the stairs, fire-drill fashion, full stampede mode. Totally packed. Think all those employees would have been stumbling over one another to grab the McCain commemorative edition? “This is the definition of the liberal media,” went one quip.

All day long, friends of Posties had been calling to ask Hey, can you score me one of those precious commemorative editions?

No, as a matter of fact: When the employees got to the distribution area by the building’s lobby, the rule was this: One copy per employee ID card. No cronyism in Washington anymore!

Publisher Katharine Weymouth saw a Kodak moment in all of this. She was snapping pictures of employees getting their editions.

Leave it to Michael Landrum, the self-proclaimed “Improprietor” of Ray’s the Steaks, Ray’s the Classics, and Ray’s Butcher Burgers, to post this love note to Tom Sietsema after the Washington Post critic’s recent dust-up over a First Bite review of the Commissary:

The one thing that doesn’t make sense to me about this whole thing is what was Tom doing dating someone from Logan Tavern/Merkado/Grillfish in the first place? I mean, isn’t that a little like Louis Menand dating Danielle Steele? Or Pauline Kael dating Michael Bay? (Don’t get me wrong, Danielle Steele and Michael Bay are very successful at what they do and very good at their craft, but imagine how the conversation would go when Michael Bay has a new movie out…”So, honey, seen any good movies lately? No? Well, what should we go see? You know, I heard about this really good new movie that just came out. It’s a provocative, insightful, layered post-modern hommage to a classic Hollywood masterpiece. Except instead of a dark, wild, disturbing projection of our deepest psycho-sexual fears and un-tamed longings in the form of a giant ape named Kong, it’s got cars that turn into giant robots from outerspace…Whaddya mean you won’t see it…You never want to go to ANY of my movies…I’ll be on the couch.”

Not that I’m jealous or anything, but if Tom really wanted to date someone in the restaurant business, would it have hurt him to at least call?

Truly a man of the people:

Trouble viewing? Try the YouTube version.

*(The pencils say “Artie D.”)

Update from Ward 6: Don’t miss this hard-hitting tell-all, in which Arthur Delaney (a.k.a. Sir Pants-a-lot) holds forth on his incredible dark horse campaign, the resonance of his message, his umbrella woes, and the perils of picking Glick.

Don’t be fooled by the blazer, folks. Arthur Delaney may look like your typical District politico, but he drinks his beers one at a time. Just like the rest of us.

Trouble viewing? Try the YouTube version.

Joe Yonan, editor of the Washington Post’s Food section, contacted me earlier today to clear up the paper’s position on future reviews of EatWell DC restaurants, which include The Heights, Grillfish, and the Commissary. David Winer, a partner with EatWell DC, had earlier sent a letter to his mailing list, saying that the Post had agreed never to review his restaurants again following critic Tom Sietsema’s hard, pipe-hitting First Bite commentary on the Commissary, which the Post has since retracted and pulled from its Web site. (The review is still available here.)

Says Yonan: “There is no agreement not to cover any of the Commissary owners’ other businesses.” The only agreement is that Sietsema will not handle any of the Post’s future coverage of EatWell DC’s restaurants.

So why did Winer think the Post had agreed never to review his places again? I don’t know. But I have a call into him. More as I know it.

UPDATE (2:14 P.M.): Winer called back to say he wasn’t interested in continuing the war of words. Here’s what he would allow: “I never spoke to Joe Yonan, and that’s the fact of the matter.” Winer also said that, from the beginning, he had only one issue with the Post: “My sole problem in all of this is a conflict of interest,” Winer said, “nothing more.”

Through years of hearing that this business is on its way to extinction, I’ve always figured that newspapers won’t go away as long as guys take dumps.

But I’m reconsidering my rosy, bowl’s-half-full outlook, all because of today’s Washington Post.

I hit the reading room this morning expecting to have my pick of stories and columns about last night’s Skins/Steelers game. After all, ads that ran throughout the radio broadcast from FedExField promised I’d be able “read all about it…in tomorrow’s Washington Post.”

All I got from the Sports section was a photo of Shaun Suisham kicking a field goal in the first quarter and a disclaimer: “The game ended too late to be included in this edition.” The section’s lead article was about Thursday’s Maryland/Virginia Tech game. Real timely stuff.

And this wasn’t the sports section from the roadie edition you get at truck stops in Dumfries and Aberdeen. This was from the home edition that was delivered to Petworth, right smack in the middle of the city.

The damn game didn’t end any later than “Monday Night Football” games have been ending since I delivered the damn paper in the 1970s, and I used to go to bed at halftime knowing I’d be able to read about what I missed when I woke up.

How could the Post let this happen?

I’m mad. The unexpected lack of Skins info ruined my morning.

Am I going to have to start bringing my laptop into the, um, reading room?

This afternoon Southeast Capitol Hill resident Arthur Delaney kicked off his write-in campaign for a spot on the local advisory neighborhood commission. Delaney, who is me, is campaigning entirely on a pro-single-beers platform for 6B08.

Lately, the local political establishment is united in its insistence that corner stores not sell single cans or bottles of beer and malt liquor. Delaney has two simple questions:

1. What is a person supposed to do if he or she wants a beer but can’t afford a six pack?
2. What if a person just wants one beer?

The answer to these questions is that a person who has ever been or ever will be in either situation must vote for Arthur Delaney in 6B08 tomorrow. Arthur Delaney has the necessary maverick qualities to begin to reverse the nannyish tide that will outlaw single sales in early 2009.

After the jump, more details, plus Arthur Delaney’s first campaign video.

Read the rest of this entry »

Three weeks ago, as we were preparing the latest installment of Dishing Expedition, I was all ready to offer up a one-paragraph summation of my lone visit to the Commissary in Logan Circle, but at the last minute, the item got cut due to space limitations. Given the ongoing flap over Washington Post restaurant critic Tom Sietsema’s now-retracted First Bite review of the eatery, it seems a fitting moment to resurrect the commentary:

Scorn in the U.S.A.

I have only one comment after picking at an overcooked cheeseburger, a limp croque-monsieur, and a dry, flavor-challenged margherita pizza at the Commissary, the new flag-waving haunt in the old Merkado Kitchen space at 1443 P St. NW (202-299-0018): The economy’s gonna have to get a lot worse before I dine regularly at this cheap-eats spot.

I specifically want to highlight the time frame of my original jab at the Commissary—mid-October, well before Sietsema’s piece. Earlier today, EatWell DC partner David Winer, one of the owners of the Commissary, said he fears retribution from the “covey of restaurant food critics” who, for all he knows, may “have coffee together.” Winer may well view this posting as a sympathetic pat on the back to Sietsema, but I offer it up as evidence that a conflict of interest does not inherently mean that the original criticism was unfounded. I understand Winer’s frustration, but I’d encourage him to look at his food as much as the critic reviewing it.

Don Rockwell, founder of the online foodie board donrockwell.com, has come to Tom Sietsema’s defense after the Washington Post retracted the restaurant critic’s First Bite review of the Commissary in Logan Circle. Writes Rockwell:

This is a tough standard, and I stand solidly behind Tom on this one (while at the same time understanding the Post’s decision). Perhaps he should have mentioned a disclaimer, but from what I know about Tom Sietsema, he is professional enough to remain objective, regardless of any potential conflicts of interest, actual or perceived. He’s done it in the past with Breadline, Stoney’s, etc., and from where I view things, he’s maintained extremely high integrity, year after year. I’ll come right out and say that I’ve dined with Tom in the past where he is recognized (and fawned over), and it did not affect his reviews in any way that I could see. Ever since I became forum host at eGullet, I’ve used aspects of his approach as models for my own behavior, and these remain in place to this very day.

Your turn: What do you think about Sietsema’s mini-review and the Post’s retraction?

In June, a bunch of Washington Post executives, including Publisher Katharine Weymouth, traveled to Cambridge, Mass., for a skull session at Harvard Business School. The idea was to launch a top-to-bottom rethinking of the Post’s biz model–you know, the usual big-picture questions such as What do we do now? What should we do? What do we do best?

The answer to that last question may be this: Create committees and deliberate.

Over the past several months, a large committee of Posties–around 30 to 40, according to sources–has been batting around ideas for the Nouveau Washington Post. In late summer, they dumped a ton of recommendations and analysis on three key players at the Post: Publisher Weymouth; Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli; and President and General Manager Stephen Hills.

That triumvirate then turned around and attempted to distill all the information into one grand, shiny, visionary, inspirational strategic plan. A couple of weeks ago, they came out of hiding and showed their work.

Not enough specifics, said the reviewing committee, according to multiple Post sources. The plan was apparently steeped in broad-brush proclamations about what the paper should be, but stingy on the sort of detail needed for managers who must execute, execute, execute!

So the powerful, insular group of top, top executives is going to rework this beast, adding details and focus and–who knows!–maybe even a how-to sidebar or something like that. (No sourcing for that last bit–pure conjecture.) A new product is supposed to be ready for inspection sometime in December.

No one contacted on this matter–eight officials in the know–would speak for the record, as if company strategy were, like, some kind of sensitive topic.

Oh, check that: Weymouth herself got back to me, with this thorough response:

The goal of the strategy process (which has received far more attention than it deserves) was not to change what we do, but to refocus the organization and help us shape The Washington Post for the 21st century. Our goal, as it always has been, is to serve our audiences (in print, online, wherever) and to do that with a strong business behind base. We went to Harvard to acquire a framework and then rolled it out to a broader cross-functional group. We (Marcus, Steve and I) then pulled their recommendations into one strategy and approach. The group was disappointed that we did not provide them with the details of what the strategy means for them. We postponed the broader staff meeting in order to try to flesh out more detail. That said, our goal with the strategy is not to provide all the answers - it is to set the direction.

As much local politics as humanly possible. Send your tips, releases, stories, events, etc. to lips@washingtoncitypaper.com.

Mornin’ all. Tune into Channel 13 right now to watch Michelle Rhee in one of those council hearings she likes so much.

IN LL WEEKLY—General election endorsements: Vote for Carol!

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT—”Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Counting Write-In Votes in the District of Columbia“: “Simply writing in ‘Carol,’ the board will count as a vote for Schwartz….Also likely to be judged valid are various mispellings of Schwartz, such as ‘Shwartz,’ ‘Schwarts,’ ‘Schwarz,’ or variations thereof”; “More on the Supermarket Poll”

“Eleanor Holmes Norton is still running scared,” writes Hamil Harris on B5. Lip service also paid to Statehood Green candidate Maude Louise Hills, “who has said her campaign budget so far has been $150.” Plus: Eleanor video!

Read the rest of this entry »

These are grim days for the Washington Post Co. As pointed out in the Washington Business Journal, the company’s outlook has been downgraded from “stable” to “negative” by Standard & Poor’s. Other lowlights:

*Newspaper and magazine publishing now account for only 26 percent of its sales. The company is mainly an education concern, what with the phenomenal growth of its education arm, Kaplan.

*The Post Co. reported losses of $2.7 million in the second quarter of this year–its first operating losses in 37 years.

*The company’s stock has done an absolute nosedive this year, losing around 60 percent of its value.

The company will soon announce its third quarter results. Anyone betting on a turnaround?

Early voting=more participation=more inclusive system=stronger democracy. Right? No question about that. Well, professional CW debunker Marc Fisher has a question or two.

Courtesy of Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell, get the inside scoop on how the Post ended up running this correction:

An old photograph was mistakenly published in the Oct. 20 Style section with a Reliable Source item about Saturday’s National Italian American Foundation gala. The photo of the late Jack Valenti with Mel Brooks and Alan Alda was from the 2006 gala.

That correction, in the great ass-covering newspaper tradition, doesn’t pointedly state why this mistake was such a big one: By running the 2006 photo, the Post stated, in effect, that Valenti was still alive.(He died in April 2007.) A good corrections editor, in this situation, would insist that the item in plain English reflect the full scope of the screwup.

Washingtonpost.com is among the many sites that’ve made a traffic killing off of the presidential race. September brought the second consecutive month of record-breaking traffic, with nearly 13 million unique users, up from just over 11 million in August.

Thank you, Sarah.

According to washingtonpost.com Editor Liz Spayd, 10 of the top 30 stories in September were about Palin. Spayd wouldn’t specify which of the Post’s many Palin stories drove all the hits. Though the paper’s dot-com operation claims that it’s tamping down some of its secrecy with respect to traffic information, it’ll go only so far. When asked whether those popular stories consisted of all the enterprise pieces the paper did or its opinion fare, Spayd responded that it was a mix of both.

Spayd said that other politics stuff was cooking as well–like the Trail, the Fix, and PostPartisan, a series of “quick takes” by the paper’s editorial boarders.

All of which queues up a question that many national news outlets are now facing: What on earth is the Post going to do when the race is over? Let Spayd take it away via e-mail: “Our traffic boost, no question, is powered by politics, but we’ve seen growth in other areas as well. It’s apt to taper off after the election, but we’re already gearing up for a new White House and administration, with new blogs and web ventures in the works. Stay tuned.”