The parlor game continues…
Slate’s Jack Shafer, who just can’t help providing some of the smartest takes on all things media, wonders who should be “The Next Editor of the Washington Post.”
Local names mentioned: Jim VandeHei and John Harris (together), Chuck Todd, Jill Abramson and James Bennet.
Politico’s Mike Allen suggests Time’s Michael Grunwald.
- “In my vision, the future executive editor of the Washington Post would spend six months at the Washingtonpost.com as its top editor and then annex the newspaper, just to let people know that the company’s priority is electronic.”
- “Am I the only one creeped out by what looks like an aggressive search to fill a job that has yet to be vacated? … The search, or the talking tour, or whatever you want to call it, makes Weymouth look bad, and it undercuts Downie, who has to tell press-beat reporters almost daily that he’s not quitting, not taking the buyout, not going anywhere soon. And it makes the Post look unstable. If Weymouth is replacing Downie, let’s have out with it, if only to reduce the cringe factor. He deserves better.”
- On VandeHarris: “They understand how to make something new, how to hire young and smart, and how to take chances.”
- On Chuck Todd: “this year’s Mark Halperin…” (How does that make Halperin feel?)
Of course, VandeHarris would never take the gig (together or separately, we think), given their commitment to the Politico. And, as NBC News’ rising star, Chuck Todd probably wouldn’t either (plus: could he really help shape the Post’s non-news coverage [read: Style]?).
>Speaking of Weymouth, one Postie tipster writes in:
I’d feel a lot better about Katherine Weymouth’s note to post.com staffers if I actually saw her over here more. She made an appearance when she came on board and I think I’ve seen here here once since then (granted, I don’t work on the editorial floor, but still.)