In another sign of how the Washington Post is moving to merge its print and online versions, washingtonpost.com changed its logo today to the same one that sits atop the regular newspaper. The old web site logo has been scuttled in favor of reinforcing the Post brand, a decision that strikes us as both wise and long overdue. Fishbowl DC has the internal memo:
This recognizes what we all have long known: washingtonpost.com is very much part of The Washington Post, complementary and in some ways distinct, but an absolutely central part of who we are. As we rethink how we present our journalism--whether it emanates from the paper or from the web--we wanted to signal that clearly to all our audiences.

Thanks to This Week's Advertisers


Yeah, I noticed that yesterday evening. It's very New York Times~ish. At the end of the day, though....should it matter? Usability and design aesthetics where it matters should always trump logos, borders, and fonts.
Bowing to the inevitable, but further "integration" means there's less and less reason to pay to have the dead tree version / fishwrapper landing on your stoop every morning.
It looks nicer
Does the design look nice? Yes. Is the reporting intelligent and the editing thorough? No.
I believe the term is "polishing a turd."
I noticed this morning when I clicked on what used to be the "Print Edition" and it took me to the subscribe page.
I think the "Print Edition" has been replaced with something called the e-Replica:
http://thewashingtonpost.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
i noticed this last night, too. have to say, though, the .com logo was a well-designed logo. very clean. the print logo doesn't translate well to the website. the clash of modern web design with late 1800s typeface couldn't be greater.
that said, i understand why they did it.
It's a step in the right direction anyway. They really need a good web designer to make their site less of a hodgepodge and easier on the eyes.