You could read the whole memo about changes at The Washington Post at Romenesko, or you could read the important parts more quickly here.

The bottom line, courtesy of the memo sent to employees on Thursday from Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli and his top deputies, Liz Spayd and Raju Narisetti: Get stories out more quickly. Don’t worry about how you do it — on paper, a Blackberry or whatever. Just get it out there. And don’t slack on the writing and editing, please.

Excerpts from the memo:

Today, we are beginning a reorganization to create new reporting groups, streamline editing desks and anticipate the impending integration of our print and digital news operations. …  [W]e want to simplify the handling of words, pages, images and new media, building on the prescient move to “two-touch” editing under Len and Phil. Decisions about space and play must happen faster, both in print and online, and in a way that pulls together our now-separate newsrooms. A single editor ultimately ought to be able to oversee all versions of a story, whether it appears in print, online or on a BlackBerry or iPhone. Space in the newspaper and editing firepower in general should be allocated based on a day’s news priorities, not a predetermined formula.

These changes will alter the way we do things, but they will not affect the commitment to journalistic depth, authority and excellence that has defined The Post. Just the reverse: We think these steps will help us to adapt more easily to the economic and technological challenges that face us, while preserving the best of our traditions and values. …

The Post also will:

• Group most reporters under a national editor and a local editor
• Start a “universal news desk” to edit copy, regardless of format. (It will handle online and print roles, which likely won’t make all the online people so happy as they worry about where their jobs will go.)
• Group other reporters into different teams to pursue stories in a more organized way than now.
• Rethink aspects of the paper’s design (Sounds like a big project, but it’s hazy for now.)
• “Meld” the digital newsroom (now in Arlington, Va.) with the print newsroom later this year.

The changes (which include a bunch of promotions and lateral moves of people whose names I know, but likely don’t matter to you) look like they accomplish two purposes:

• Reimagine how a newspaper newsroom ought to be run as the staff starts to think about how life will be after the printed paper goes away
• Cut costs. Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth, as we’ve reported before, owes her uncle, Washington Post Chairman Donald Graham, a plan to put the paper back in the black.

It will be interesting to see how they tackle these challenges while buying out employees. Maybe the transplants from washingtonpost.com’s newsroom will be more necessary than they realize. Now the question is whether they will want to unionize like their print colleagues. It’s always about the money, isn’t it?

(Photo: Reuters. Washington Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher (l), Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli (c), U.S. President Barack Obama (R))

Don’t ask The New York Times how much its new front-page display ads cost. The paper won’t say. That didn’t stop the New York Post from asking ad buyers. Here’s the answer based on anonymous sources:

$75,000 on weekdays and $100,000 on Sundays.

Assuming that the Post counts Saturday as a weekday, and assuming no discounts or other special deals (and assuming this blog post is not written by a reporter who nearly failed at least one high school math class), this works out to $28.6 million a year: $23.4 million for 52 weeks of Monday through Saturday and $5.2 million for a year’s worth of Sundays.

Despite the TImes’s silence, the ad cost sounds about right. The Wall Street Journal charges $90,000 for its front-page ads, not counting special discounts. Other details sound similar too. Here’s the Post:

Apparently, The Times is leveraging the front page space to get advertisers to increase their ad buys.

The paper is limiting the front page to big advertisers willing to spend more on top of their existing budgets.

A new advertiser who wants access to the space has to commit to buying the ad 26 times during the year - for a total of almost $2 million, ad buyers say. The Times has previously run classifieds on the front page.

The Journal’s program is similar: limit the front-page membership to big advertisers and get them to commit. CBS’s marketing chief George Schweitzer told us that the broadcaster has committed to a number of runs throughout the year, but declined to say more than that.

The front-page ad news, which the Times announced yesterday, might have stirred up some muttering in journalism academe like it did a few years ago when the Journal started doing it because purists aren’t crazy about sacrificing prime real estate for news on the altar of dirty profit. Nowadays, folks are a little less squeamish about making the big sale, especially when considering the health of the newspaper business.

On a side note, the Post –  now a sister paper of the Journal under New York Times enemy Rupert Murdoch — story tries to have it both ways. It notes that the Times is late to the game, yet runs a caption over a picture of black-eyed Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr that says that he is “smashing the paper of record’s vaunted Chinese wall between news and advertising by peddling front-page space.”

Apparently there’s no honorable way to make a buck in journalism.

Keep an eye on

• CBS and Time Warner reach fresh broadcast deal. Now you can keep letting your brain atrophy on television. (Reuters)
• Washington Post No. 2 newsman Phil Bennett resigns, goes to work on a project about the future of news elsewhere in the Post (They must have this project around for everyone they oust. Remember Susan Glasser). That keeps the paycheck coming until he gets his next job. This happens right after post.com Web chief Jim Brady splits after chafing under a new layer of management and frustration because of ongoing print-vs-Web issues. Meanwhile, new Post editor and former Wall Street Journal top editor Marcus Brauchli might bring in former colleague Raju Narisetti, late of India’s Mint business daily. Next week on 90210! (Wall Street Journal)
• If you think that newspapers slept through technology changes in the past 50 years, you would be WRONG. Jack Shafer explains why, and does it a lot better than I’ve managed to do over countless barroom conversations with all my friends who hate newspapers. (Slate)

(Photo: “Spiderman” Alain Robert got free front-page advertising on the New York Times. Not in the paper but on the building. We recommend a different advertising strategy that won’t get you arrested. Reuters)

Marcus Brauchli could have looked forward to a pleasant summer vacation before digging into his new job in September as The Washington Post’s new executive editor, but instead he will punch the clock like the rest of us.

In an interview with Reuters on Tuesday, the former Wall Street Journal managing editor said he plans to wrap up his consulting work with News Corp on a project in Asia. We don’t know the details, but it was part of an agreement tied to his resignation from the Journal after News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch let him know that his services at the paper would no longer be needed.

“It’s very interesting and productive,” was all Brauchli would say about it.

He reportedly took home a decent severance package for resigning only about a year after Dow Jones’s previous management named him as the Journal’s top editor. Some reports say it was $3 million to $5 million. Brauchli would not comment on the amount, nor would he say whether he’s keeping it now that he has a new job and won’t be enriching News Corp’s Asian business.

We also asked him about what he told Murdoch and new Journal editor Robert Thomson about his prospects at the Post. “Of course, I kept News Corp informed,” he said. He did not say if Murdoch or Thomson had any words of advice for him.

(Photo courtesy of The Washington Post)

Although Marcus Brauchli’s decision to resign as the top editor at The Wall Street Journal — announced on Tuesday — did not require the approval of the paper’s editorial integrity committee, they will step in when it’s time to hire the next one. 

The committee was designed to safeguard editorial independence by approving or vetoing the hiring choices in case its new owner, News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch, attempts to use his candidate to evade a solemn promise to keep the newspaper’s editorial dignity intact. It was one of the few safeguards left behind by its previous owners, the Bancroft family, as a condition for agreeing to the Murdoch’s takeover.

How effective will the committee actually be? We asked former Dow Jones board member Christopher Bancroft on Tuesday.

“That’s a lovely fantasy,” he said. “I told the family [at the time] that it’s window dressing. It is a lovely fantasy to imagine you can have a board that will take care of editorial issues at The Wall Street Journal.”

Jeff Bercovici and Portfolio.com got a similar comment from another family member, Jane Cox MacElree:

“I’m not surprised,” says Jane Cox MacElree, who controlled 15 percent of the family’s Dow Jones shares. “This is why I was not in favor of selling the paper to that man. Words mean nothing to him, unless they’re his.”

What do you think about the committee? Five people getting $100,000 to act out a fantasy, or five guardians of truth, justice and journalism?

(Photo: Reuters)