Well, the Post is now thinking that its 90-odd blogs are just too much for one newspaper Web site.

Good thinkin'!

Check out the memo, post-jump.

Colleagues,

Please find a link to an updated and complete list of blogs on washingtonpost.com: http://blog.washingtonpost.com.

It is the first step in what has been an ongoing, comprehensive review of all our blogs. You will notice that we have now classified 32 blogs as archived. Dozens of other blogs that were dormant have been spiked. This still leaves us about 90 "active" blogs for now.

While we will continue to regularly add new blogs that are topical and relevant to our 'For and About Washington' strategy, we plan to ask editors, especially our Innovation Editors, to take a closer look over the next month or so at all active blogs, using current traffic, audience participation and page view trends as key measures. And here is why:

Typically, 10 blogs on washingtonpost.com account for about 60% of all our blog page views in any given week. The top 20 blogs account for 79% of all weekly blog page views. There is usually very little change in which blogs make our top 20 list.

The next 30 blogs collectively add 18% more blog page views. This means that 50 of our blogs generate 97.3% of all our blog page views. The remaining 40 or so blogs generally contribute about 2.7% of blog page views while taking up significant time and resources both from reporters and editors.

Obviously, we want to be sure that we are nurturing new blogs or blogs that are highly topical/seasonal, and those that significantly complement our overall coverage on a given topic. We also want to support those blogs that are showing consistent upward momentum with readers even if their current page view base is small. But, at the same time, we want to make sure that we are not diverting limited resources—reporting, editing, tools, marketing–away from our better performing blogs.

Most editors in the newsroom have by now received training on pulling traffic data on blogs, so please ask your editor if you want specific trend information on your blog. Feel free to drop Sandy Sugawara on the Universal News Desk or me a note if you have more questions.

Thank you,
Raju [Narisetti]

A seasoned consumer of news had every reason to furrow a brow at the XX Files column in last week's Washington Post Magazine. The first-person essay touts the author's one-woman campaign against kiddie thieves in a local pharmacy.

Here's a sampling: "As the child scurries past me with his pilfered beverage, I reach out for the hood of his coat. I pull him in and press my hand on his back. 'Put it back,' I say. Though he's the one in trouble, my own heart races. A whimper seeps from his mouth; a gurgle of stuttered syllables follows. 'I'm s-s-orry. I'm s-sorry,' he repeats."

It's a powerful, well-told episode, but how do we know it ever happened?

First of all, the neighborhood isn't identified by name—only as a "well-to-do neighborhood of popular restaurants that serve not food but 'cuisine' and shrimp that is never spicy fried but 'Crispy Dangerous.'" The police officer hanging out at the store isn't identified by name—only as a cop whose "stern countenance is surpassed only by a severe haircut and biceps so chiseled that any squirming thief could be brought to his knees with one arm twist." The beverage being heisted by the kid isn't identified by brand—only as "orange soda."

Fanta? Sunkist?

One more: Not even the store is mentioned by name—only as a "chain pharmacy." And the Post didn't even attach one of those anonymity explainers here, which could easily have been worded as follows: "The chain pharmacy requested anonymity over fears that publicizing its troubles with teen pilfering could depress sales of Diet Coke."

And lurking behind all this anonymity and uncheckable data is columnist Wanda E. Fleming, author of one of the most embarrassing episodes in the mag's history. In January, Fleming wrote a column in the same space titled "Suspended Disbelief," about the travails of a friend's husband who'd been accused of child molestation by a girl. The man accepts a plea, spends some time in jail, and comes home to find out how it feels to be treated like a monster.

Except it didn't happen that way. The man hadn't accepted a plea agreement but, rather, was convicted in a trial. Another critical point: He didn't have just one accuser; he had "more than one" accuser, according to a black-eye-inflicting editor's note by the magazine's editor at the time, Tom Shroder. "The inescapable conclusion is that the man’s guilt was not as ambiguous as presented. No names were used, but the families of the victims only too readily recognized the circumstances and were understandably upset by the implication of the story," wrote Shroder.

Not exactly your garden-variety, Page A2 correction.

Weeks later, Fleming wrote a blog post about the problem with her piece: "In a 750 word 'personal essay,' much is omitted."

Despite all that, Fleming managed to regain favor at the magazine in time for her piece on petty theft from a pharmacy. One commenter wondered how she'd pulled it off so quickly:

This story asks us to believe an unverifiable anecdote; normally, that's okay, but this writer does not deserve that trust. In her last contribution to the XX Files just a few months ago, this writer totally misrepresented the facts about a child molestation case, resulting in a correction and an abject apology from the magazine editor in his column. What gives? Why are we supposed to believe this?

I put the "What gives?" question to Debra Leithauser, the current editor of the magazine. I asked whether Fleming was put through any extra paces, whether staff had checked out the pharmacy, whether the security people were interviewed, and so on.

This is the answer that came back: "As editor, I am responsible for what appears in the magazine. Right now, I am focused on the future, and we have an incredible new magazine launching next week."

As media critic, I am responsible for critiquing what has appeared in the magazine. Unfortunately, I cannot critique stuff that will appear in the magazine in the future, unless I am given access to galleys.

In rebuffing questions about Fleming, Leithauser is in good company. Questions in hand, I contacted Managing Editor Raju Narisetti (who oversees the magazine), Managing Editor Liz Spayd (who doesn't oversee the magazine), and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli. The questions remain unanswered.

It's unclear whether the silence is the first step in the Post's implementation of the Brauchli Doctrine (i.e., newspapers spend too much time explaining themselves) or whether the Fleming issue is just too sensitive to touch.

Perhaps it's all just a resource question. The Post, after all, has suffered through four buyouts this decade, and maybe they don't have the people to fact-check any freelance columns, even one filled with anonymous characters and penned by someone who prompted an editor's note.

So I took it upon myself to track down this nameless pharmacy and figure out whether Wanda Fleming had ever nailed some fresh-faced kid trying to steal a generic orange soda. Fleming herself is listed as living near the Tenleytown commercial strip, and the "Crispy Dangerous" shrimp she refers to appears to come off the menu of a Thai restaurant in Tenleytown.

Next stop, Tenleytown CVS. I show the Washington Post Magazine story to a clerk at the store. He skims through, as customers pile up behind him. "That's what it sounds like," he says, acknowledging the problem identified in Fleming's column. He requests anonymity, like everyone else in this whole damn affair. When I ask him about the incident in which Fleming busts some kid, he says he doesn't remember it.

That means nothing, of course. No clerk can possibly monitor everything that goes down in a store. There are only two people who know whether that incident happened—Fleming and the unnamed alleged thief.

I head over to Fleming's house, hoping to have a long sit-down to discuss the incident and perhaps track down the boy and the cop—anyone else who can corroborate this story.

Fleming opens the door. I identify myself as a reporter for Washington City Paper and note that I've tried to contact her via e-mail and phone. Fleming closes the door, saying, "I'm not speaking to anyone."

That's where Roger Black comes in. The paper has contracted with this renowned New York design guru to redo its newspaper and Web site. In recent weeks, Black has been meeting with staffers to get their ideas on freshening the look of the Post brand.

Like all deliberative processes at the Post, this one won't spawn a revolution. "Instead of a redesign, it'll be much more of a cleaning up of visually contrasting elements," says a Post source, referring to "typefaces changing from section to section," among other minor design problems.

In a Wednesday meeting with a group of newsroom leaders, Black pushed his audience to think expansively about what the paper needs and what it can eliminate. One attendee says Black will be focusing on how to fit the Post's journalism in an ever-shrinking news hole, as well as coming up with "strategies for helping stories pop off the page more."

Black certainly can't complain that he isn't getting enough help. To generate recommendations on the redesign, the Post has assembled 14 committees, each with reps from both the print and online sides of the operation. The best committee name is "The Crown Jewels," a panel that is presumably working on preserving and enhancing the greatest assets of the product. Other panel jurisdictions include the Sunday paper, agate and listings, and breaking news.

There's no telling where all the committees and the contract design talent will push the paper's Web site, which recently bumped its "washingtonpost.com" banner in favor of the iconic, bold-letter "The Washington Post." Top Post officials have declined comment on where the site's design is headed. The best we could get was this statement from a Washington Post spokesperson: "Roger Black is providing design consulting services to The Washington Post and our redesign effort will look at both the newspaper and the Web site."

In May 2008, Black completed an overhaul of the Washington Times site, an operation that resulted in a largely black homepage with a rotating box, or "cube," showcasing the moment's top news stories. The content "innovations" of the site may have been a bit ahead of their time, including "400,000 horizontal entry points, or 'news themes,'" integrated into the site, as well as this feature: "Communities built around topics and hosted by 'mayors' who moderate the debate each day, with related sub-communities called neighborhoods into the web site."

Black is a celebrated talent who has engineered the look of many "content-based media" sites, including MSNBC.com, Discovery.com, and @Home. On his site, Black conveys the thinking behind his work: "Media design is not just window-dressing. A redesign is not a 'face lift.' Design is the structural link between the customers and the product."

One observer has a less philosophical view of how Black appeals to his clients: "He designs newspaper sites that look like newspapers."

Black is the second high-flying, New York-based designer to take a whack at the Post site in as many years. In late 2007, executives at washingtonpost.com commissioned the Wonderfactory, a design shop that counts the Huffington Post, WebMD, and the Food Network among its clients, to make sense of the mishmash of links and images that clutter the homepage. Jim Brady, then executive editor of washingtonpost.com, expressed hope that the Wonderfactory look would hit the site by the November 2008 elections.

That never happened. Though the site has incorporated Wonderfactory's vision for a rejiggered Going Out Guide, most other parts of the firm's project have been abandoned. In the process, a whole lot of mock-ups were kicked to the curb. According to Wonderfactory Creative Director Joe McCambley, the Post paid for a user needs analysis, a user interface design, a "mood board exercise"—designed to help ferret out the company's design aesthetic—as well as redesign work on the homepage, article pages, and various section headers. The work cost the Post upwards of $200,000, according to an informed source. "They were an amazing client," says McCambley.

When asked about bagging the mock-ups, a Post spokesperson replied: "Some work done by Wonderfactory has already been used on our site—Going Out Guide, for example—and we will be using more. It was never an all or nothing approach."

Wonderfactory's work product reportedly didn't wow the Post's new guard, including Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. When pressed on this matter, however, Brauchli went generic, writing in an e-mail that the paper was in the "planning phase, so nothing to add."

This whole planning phase isn't working out too well for the people at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI), the Arlington-based Post Co. subsidiary that has run the Post's Web site for more than a decade. Founded as an entity independent of the mother ship, WPNI was supposed to incubate Web publishing innovations away from the retrograde tugs of the newsroom's old guard. Over the years, the two sides have fought over everything from food to politics to personnel.

The accession of Weymouth as Post publisher in February 2008 marked the beginning of the end of the Post's separate-but-pretty-much-equal divide between paper and Web offices. Cross-river rivalries and personnel duplication, goes the Weymouth-era thinking, are no longer sustainable, and so the operations must merge.

Though the dot-com workers in Arlington have yet to move en masse to the main Post building at 15th and L Streets NW, one of the most painful aspects of the merger has already gone down. That would be the elimination of managerial redundancy. In a combined online-print newsroom, you can't have two publishers, two executive editors, and so on. In the end, there can be only one—that's an eerie theme of the 1986 fantasy-action flick Highlander that just so happens to apply to the modern-day Washington Post.

Getting down to one has repeatedly entailed the departure of top brass at WPNI. Publisher Caroline Little left last year, as did politics editor Russ Walker. Executive Editor Brady left his post at the end of January, followed by Tom Kennedy, washingtonpost.com's top multimedia manager. The only top WPNI personality to make it into the new management at the Post is former Web site Editor Liz Spayd, a longtime Postie who has deeper ties to the main newsroom than to the Web. Spayd is now one of Brauchli's co-managing editors; the other is Raju Narisetti, who lords over the Web operation, among other things.

The departures have left rank-and-file WPNIers feeling a touch exposed as the office merger looms. Little, Brady, et al. went to the mat repeatedly over the years to stick up for the Web site's autonomy and managed to push the newsroom on all kinds of Web innovations, including the embrace of blogging and comments from the public on articles. There's no telling whether the new structure will endow the company's Webby types with the sort of power necessary to strong-arm the newsroom as the Internet continues to develop.

According to sources, Brady decided to leave the company after learning that he wouldn't be appointed as a managing editor and that Web producers in the combined newsroom would likely be reporting to the paper's section editors, and not to a Web authority. Such org-chart dynamics matter greatly to the Post's digital future. If Web producers end up answering to section editors at the paper, they'll inevitably end up doing more work for the dead-tree product and less for washingtonpost.com. Increasingly strapped for resources, Post editors will find nice ways of hijacking this labor pool: Hey, Ms. Web Producer, we hear you have some excellent copy-editing skills!

Top Posties won't come close to discussing the lines of authority in the merged newsroom: "We know and value the tremendous creative talent in The Post's digital newsroom. Our plans recognize that strength and will enhance it," writes Brauchli via e-mail.

If so, Brauchli should brush up on his memo-writing skills. Dot-com personnel were scandalized to read his electronic missive on the change to a bold-letter banner on the Web site. It read, in part: "This recognizes what we all have long known: washingtonpost.com is very much part of The Washington Post, complementary and in some ways distinct, but an absolutely central part of who we are." The "complementary and in some ways distinct" part didn't go down too well in Arlington.

The patronizing tone of Brauchli's words conveys the current reality of the Washington Post—that the newsroom is swallowing the Web site, for better or worse. Says Brady: "They've wanted to control it forever and now they have their chance–and I hope it works out for the best. I think they'll find it's not as easy as it looks from the outside."

Details from the Post memo:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—January 13, 2009—The Washington Post today named Elizabeth Spayd and Raju Narisetti as Managing Editors of The Washington Post. Both will report to Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli.

Ms. Spayd and Mr. Narisetti will share responsibility for The Post’s award-winning journalism, whether in print, online and on mobile devices, and they will lead the integration of The Post’s print and online newsrooms.

Ms. Spayd, who has been editor of washingtonpost.com since 2007, will oversee the gathering, editing and production of news. Her brief will include political, general, business, foreign and metropolitan news, as well as The Post’s news desk and the print newspaper’s day-to-day production.

Mr. Narisetti, founding editor of India’s Mint newspaper and a former deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, will oversee departments including Style, The Washington Post Magazine, Weekend, video, design and photography. He will be responsible for washingtonpost.com’s day-to-day operations and guide strategy and innovation in technology and interactivity.

“Liz is an enormously talented and respected journalist at The Post, having most recently guided our highly successful online edition and before that a National staff that won four Pulitzer Prizes during her tenure,” Mr. Brauchli said. “Raju has vast experience at the forward edge of news design and technology, in addition his tremendous accomplishments as a newsroom leader in the U.S., Europe and Asia. I can’t think of two better people to lead us through the myriad challenges we face, while protecting our top-notch journalism and staying at the forefront of digital innovation.”

Ms. Spayd, 50 years old, joined The Washington Post in April 1988 as an assistant editor overseeing national business coverage. She became a Metro reporter in 1991, and a few years later moved to Outlook. For nearly a decade, she worked on the national staff, as social policy editor, then national editor and later was named assistant managing editor of the department. She supervised coverage of national elections, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. In 2007, she became washingtonpost.com’s editor.

Mr. Narisetti, 42, was most recently editor of Mint, a national business paper launched in India in February 2007. Mint’s New Delhi newsroom was created as a fully integrated, print and online operation, a pioneer among newspapers globally. Until June 1, 2006, Mr. Narisetti was Editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe as well as a Deputy Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal in the U.S., where he also held overall responsibility for European and Middle East/Africa coverage. Before that, he was deputy national news editor of the Journal, where he started as a reporter.