Events, like those organized by Glenn Beck or involving Jon Stewart and Steven [sic] Colbert, are political, and therefore Post newsroom employees may not participate. By participate, we mean that Post newsroom employees cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause. That means no T-shirts, buttons, marching, chanting, etc. This guideline does not prohibit Post newsroom employees from observing—that is, watching and listening from the sidelines. The important thing is that it should be evident to anyone that you are observing, as journalists do, not participating, whether you are covering the event or not.

We made fun of it at the time, partly because sending out a memo to remind journalists of their ethics was amusing. But the memo came to mind when I saw that Post staff writer Anne Kornblut testified before the D.C. Council on Wednesday in favor of more bike and pedestrian safety measures in her neighborhood.

The issue wasn't that Kornblut wants more safety where she lives—I am in favor of people getting involved in their neighborhoods. But Kornblut says she had the support of her editors because it was a local issue, not a national issue. As she said to me via e-mail, "I obviously wouldn't get involved in anything that I might cover." And yes, fair enough.

But I have to wonder at the Post's policy on letting staff get involved in governmental issues—particularly in a town that the paper lives in and covers. Even if Kornblut doesn't cover local issues, the Post has some stake in what happens here. And this leads me to a larger question: Why does the Post consider a rally "political," if a local legislative issue isn't? And while increased pedestrian and bicycle safety is an admirable goal—don't tell us it isn't political.

Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti hasn't gotten back to me yet with an answer—but I'lll update if she does.

UPDATE: Coratti just wrote back to say: "In hindsight, we shouldn't have approved this." So don't look for any more Posties to testify at the Wilson Building any time soon.

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!

So far, so murky: "Being for, and about Washington" doesn't clarify too much, especially when you consider that "Washington" is the locus of infinite local and national stories.

Item No. 2 in the Mystery of the Washington Post's Murky Mission: Last week, just after news broke that the Post would be closing its remaining domestic bureaus in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli is quoted in his own paper as follows: "We are not a national news organization of record serving a general audience. Nor are we a wire service or cable channel."

So far, so more murky: So you're not a "national news organization of record." Are you a national news organization of unrecord, or off-the-record? What does this whole "of record" thing mean? And if you're not a national news organization, why do you retain a sizable "national" desk. And if you're not a national news organization, why do you cover television with as many resources as you do? If there's one thing that's national, it's tube.

Item No. 3 in the Mystery of the Washington Post's Murky Mission: In the course of reporting a blog post about the Post, City Desk wrings the following statement out of Post spokesperson Kris Coratti: “We cover news of interest to our audience, whether it is local, national or international. That hasn’t changed and that won’t change."

So far, so terribly murky: Now, it seems, the Post's whole reportorial outlook is merely reactive. If it appears that some readers want more national stuff, then Congress and global warming legislation they'll get. If it appears that they want a bit more local, then, hey, let's go long and hard on Mayor Fenty. And if they develop a bit more curiosity about foreign affairs, double down on troops in Afghanistan.

The Coratti quote reflects just how much chaos is at work in the Post's control room. Depending on how you define it, poll it, and focus-group it, your audience can be anything; it can want anything and everything. If your strategy means that you'll cover pretty much everything so long as some people want to read it, then the strategy isn't saying too much.

Though it's unclear exactly what they were arguing about, it is clear that the mood was testy. Testy enough, that is, for Roig-Franzia to quip to Allen, "Henry, don't be such a cocksucker."

Allen didn't take kindly to the suggestion and went after Roig-Franzia, in the testimony of an eyewitness. Limited combat then broke out, though, again, it's not terribly clear how many punches landed.

The mayhem broke out not far from the temporary office of Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. A lean man, Brauchli reportedly was among the first Post males on the scene to perform the time-honored "break it up" duties. A few others helped out, too.

We have calls out to both principals and will keep prosecuting the story as the day progresses.

Update 11:28 am: Attempts to get Brauchli on the line regarding his alpha-male heroics have proven futile thus far. The executive editor is apparently on travel today. However, WaPo spokesperson Kris Coratti issued this statement in response to questions about the matter: "I can't discuss private personnel matters but that doesn't mean we haven't taken this incident seriously and addressed it appropriately."

Just what "appropriately" means here isn't quite clear yet. Before taking on that question, we're looking to speak with Allen and Roig-Franzia, not to mention other individuals.

Update 12:25 pm: Reached Roig-Franzia on his cell phone. After I identified myself, his phone hung up.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out City Paper's exclusive reenactment of this historic event: Allen v. Roig-Franzia ~ The Movie!