How the breaking news email alerts rolled in...

Salt:

"I do anticipate traffic will level off or drop a bit after the election." - Jim VandeHei, in September

Tequilla:

"Few Will Miss Following Campaign News." Pew Research Center, November 12

"Despite heated presidential campaign, number of people watching network evening newscasts shrinks" - Nov. 20, 2008

Lemon:

Yesterday, we reported that "We hear that the Center for Independent Media (including its flagship publication, the Washington Independent) is not renewing the contracts of many of its staff writers, as a cost cutting measure. Instead, writers can continue to write for the publications on a freelance basis."

We heard from both CIM brass and staffers following that post and their feedback fell along (expected) staffers-think-things-aren't-going-well-while-the-higher-ups-maintain-that-everything-is-rosy lines.

So, some updates...

Brass says...It's not hard times for CIM and that they are in the process of hiring two more editors and four more reporters in DC. "We're actually reorganizing, which means some people are going and some people are coming," CIM CEO David Bennahum told FishbowlDC.

Staff says...It is hard times for the Washington Independent and that cuts are being made on all of the state sites. But Bennahum said that, when all is said and done, their budget will remain what it was: $4 million.

Alas, it remains a "wait and see" situation.

Spencer Ackerman will remain at the Washington Independent on a full-time basis. Staffers Mary Kane, Mike Lillis and Daphne Eviatar will likely contribute to the site on a freelance basis.

Sridhar Pappu is not expected to continue with the Washington Independent and the statuses of Suemedha Sood and Matthew Blake are unknown.

Earlier today, Howard Kurtz held his weekly chat that had a heavy focus on media coverage and bias during the presidential campaign. Some excerpts:

Reston, Va.: Howie, thank you, thank you, thank you for today's column. I was flabbergasted last week when I saw two Newsweek.com headlines asking if Obama could save the print media and capitalism itself. It may be that putting Barack on a pedestal of monumental expectations may spur him to greatness, but it may also set him up as the disappointer-in-chief. If Chris Matthews (and other fawning "journalists") wants to do all he can to help Barack succeed, shouldn't he be tamping down expectations as soon as humanly possible? Howard Kurtz: I do think the expectations for Obama are out of control, that no human being, no matter how smart and talented, could fulfill them. I think the president-elect and his team recognize this dilemma. In the final weeks of the campaign and since the election, we've heard him emphasize how there are great challenges ahead, it's going to take time to tackle them, and otherwise signaling that no one should expect instant results ... Shepherd Park, Washington, D.C.: Howard, I've been thinking about the charges of media bias in favor of President-elect Obama, such as Deborah Howell's column last week. When you're relying on a simple numbers-analysis, isn't there a distinct possibility that one candidate is doing and saying more newsworthy things and deservedly gets more ink and better placement? And if one candidate has a better, or at least more positive, message than the other candidate, it seems that would lead to more positive coverage than a candidate who is presenting a more negative, or attack-driven, message. It seems to be that in these cases, presenting "balanced" coverage would actually be biased against the candidate who "deserves" the better coverage. Howard Kurtz: Not in a campaign. One candidate may be more positive, more effective, more interesting, and of course that's going to be reflected in the coverage. But it's no excuse for bias, and no excuse for one candidate to get MORE coverage than his rival. ... Howard in Cincinnati: Hi, Howard Hope to squeeze this one in... I used to watch MSNBC a lot, even though I am a Republican. I even like Chris Matthews and his shtick. But Keith Olbermann's disdain (to be polite, as it is stronger than that) for all things Bush or McCain made him unwatchable. And his love affair with Obama made me urge him to get a room. He almost makes the people at Fox News look as if they are Edward R. Murrow. My question: I can't watch him on Sunday Night football any more. His credibility has gone -- and he is a terrific and knowledgeable sports guy. Do people at NBC Sports worry about this? Howard Kurtz: I think Olbermann the sportscaster is in a different ballpark, so to speak, than Olbermann the political pundit. And even though some Olbermann fans think he's gotten too shrill and predictable on "Countdown"--hence the killer Ben Affleck parody--he's made great progress on the ratings front, which is why MSNBC last week tore up his contract and gave him a new four-year, $30-million deal.

They wanna know...

From Dana Milbank's online chat on washingtonpost.com last week:

Philadelphia: If Al Franken wins in Minnesota, I am thinking: How about Tina Fey for Pennsylvania Senator?

Dana Milbank: She'll never get past Chris Matthews in the primary.

And...

She'll never get past Chris Matthews: I don't know, she does have better legs...

Dana Milbank: Sexist! I happen to know Chris has excellent legs. You just never get to see them on the Hardball set. (And I think he won't mind me divulging the secret that he frequently does not wear shoes while broadcasting.)

From Chris Cillizza's washingtonpost.com chat today:

New York, NY : Chris, Watching the last part of Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday, it was like watching a Doublemint Commercial, or maybe an episode of Frasier. Is Ryan Lizza a distant relative? It's like that separated at birth game! Dude he could seriously play you if there is a "FIX!: the MOVIE" or maybe a board game.

Chris Cillizza: And this....

Yes, Ryan Lizza (of the New Yorker) and I look alike. And, yes we are both political reporters whose last names end in "Lizza".

Need to tell us apart?

Ryan Lizza: The better writer

Chris Cillizza: The better hoops player

From Anne Kornblut's washingtonpost.com chat today:

Anne K: Rock Star!: Hey Anne! I just wanted to tell you how much these chats have increased (all of your) visibility) to the normal news reader. Through the course of the final election coverage, I, just like everyone, had the opportunity to see things like the video of Dana Milbank's debate drinking game, and I thought, "What's Shailagh Murray up to now!" when I saw her downing the brews with Dana. Then, of course, I saw "the choice" on PBS and I saw Dan Balz, and I was explaining his position with your esteemed organization to my family ... then I said a few scenes later, "and that is Anne Kornblut; she writes for The Post and hosts a chat."

I had an a ha moment. We are being more connected to your paper through the reporters. Who knew that we would have this regular connection with reporters of the paper, as it were? Who would have thought that a reporter could be a rock star, just based on her ability/availability to talk to the masses on a regular basis? These chats are what make washingtonpost.com a must-visit Web site!

Anne E. Kornblut: Mom, is that you? I am kidding, of course -- and very appreciative of your kind words. In a time when newspapers are struggling, the Post has made a strategic decision to try to connect us with the readership more, for exactly the reasons you cite -- to help everyone understand who we are, and to give our institution credibility, and to feel like we're all part of the same mission of uncovering and interpreting the events of the day. And I have to say, with a few glaring exceptions, I love it. (Notes like this more than make up for the hate mail).

_

...as witnessed by some editing of the former Washington Post Executive Editor's Wikipedia page.

A reader sent us a screenshot...join us after the jump...

continued...

AFP White House reporter Olivier Knox was there to provide highlights, in 140 characters or less.