DCist picked up on an interesting comment made by Post humorist Gene Weingarten during his Tuesday chat:
Every day, two or three staff members are chosen to wake up early, read the whole Post, and deliver, by noon, a specific critique of that day’s paper, good or bad. These things are posted online throughout the newsroom, and are read by almost everyone at The Post. Definitely by the top brass. Tomorrow is my day. Here’s my offer: If you have the will and the time, I will include the best of your comments in my critique.
Encouraging reader participation on these internal critiques is a unique approach and it furthers the notion that the Post is providing for a very honest and public retooling of its paper. But, as I’ve written before, this public airing cuts both ways:
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…”
Did anyone write into Weingarten this morning?