Further complicating our understanding of what the heck the difference is between these washingtonpost.com reporters and Washington Post reporters (and why the Post makes such a distinction), the Post announced today that washingtonpost.com’r (and massive Eagles fan) Paul Kane’s Capitol Hill domination continues: He’s jumping to the print edition. (See Kane’s FishbowlDC interview here.)
In an internal memo obtained by FishbowlDC, management writes:
We’re happy to announce that Paul Kane, the Capitol Briefer for
washingtonpost.com, will make the leap back to the world of old media to become one of our congressional correspondents.
You’ll recall that Shailagh Murray — one of the paper’s two lead congressional correspondents — left the beat to cover the presidential campaigns. They’re shifting Kane into her role, and someone new will be picked to replace Kane on the Capitol Briefing blog.
Some side questions:
The Post isn’t the only place with this notable old media/new media situation. Ana Marie Cox’s title, for instance, is with “Time.com” but, for all intents and purposes, she’s a “Time magazine reporter” (with print articles and all that). Since almost every reporter now writes for both print and online editions, isn’t it time to drop these distinctions?