From the looks of things, Howard Kurtz did nothing but work this weekend.

What else is new.

Today, Kurtz takes a look into the internal debate raging over at the Post regarding the paper's future. Some at the Post have come to view the "in-house electronic critiques" as "revolutionary for this newsroom" (Steven Pearlstein) or "an elaborate exercise in navel gazing" (Dana Milbank).

Kurtz's piece does a good job weighing the various issues that the Post is wrestling with. There's an important side issue emerging from all of this, however (not raised in the piece):

The Post is, without a doubt, the paper most willing to air its dirty laundry (or at least the paper whose dirty laundry gets aired the most, willingly or not). Is this going to help or hurt in the long run? Most of the Post's internal squabbles have become public knowledge, either through folks like Kurtz or blogs. On the one hand, this does lend an aura of admirable authenticity and public service to their debates. On the other hand, the constant airing of grievances also creates an aura of instability and turmoil.

Which aura will win out in the end? Will readers come to love their honest mea culpas? Or one day wake up and say, "Geez, these people need to get their act together..."