Paul Kane Jumps From To Post

Further complicating our understanding of what the heck the difference is between these reporters and Washington Post reporters (and why the Post makes such a distinction), the Post announced today that’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, 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:

  • If this is considered a promotion by the paper (and all signs suggest that it is), how does that make the writers feel? Does it reinforce the (historically high, but recently improving) tensions between Post/

  • Or should this move (really a reverse move, technologically speaking, given the online-to-print switch), be seen as a sign of positive synergy between the print and dot-com entities? And is our confusion between Post & exactly the point (namely, that synergy can occur when the lines and boundaries are blurred)?

    The Post isn’t the only place with this notable old media/new media situation. Ana Marie Cox’s title, for instance, is with “” 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?

    We digress…