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 the Washington Post appeared to want to make you pay big bucks for meet-ups with their reporters and editors. Politico had the scoop on the Post scheme in which Publisher Katharine Weymouth would host "salons" in which lobbyists and association muckety mucks would pay large sums of money to hobnob with Posties, Obama administration officials, and members of Congress.

Let's stop and just say it: This is/was really, really dumb. Unethical and dumb. Yesterday, Weymouth published a "Dear Reader" letter apologizing for the now-abandoned salons. It reads in part:

"A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem."

I wonder if the Weymouth has to put a stop order on the hot appetizers she planned on serving to D.C.'s elite. I hope the Post doesn't have to eat the cost of the flower arrangement orders. And I hope they got a deal on those fliers they're not going to use. Next time: Evites.

There had been a lot of dithering on the part of the Post's staff on the subject of these salons. Howard Kurtz, the paper's media reporter, suggested the events were like the New Yorker Festival. [Um, no the salons would not have been like the New Yorker Festival]. It is really doubtful that the salons would have been open to the public and given big-time ad treatment within its pages. The salons appeared to be private affairs between Washington elite.

The best takedown/summation of this scandal? You can find it at The Awl. The Shadow Editors—featuring WCP alum Tom Scocca—dissect the scandal and the Weymouth letter. It's actually funny.

I am still confused about the extent of the Post's editors and reporters involvement in setting up the salons.

*photo courtesy Business Week.