Caruso was at Walker's restaurant in 1999 when Kerik and Ray Casey, the waste commissioner, had a conversation that was a subject of the Kerik grand jury investigation. In that conversation, according to reports of the grand jury testimony, Kerik recommended his wedding party's best man, Larry Ray, for work with Casey.

Caruso was summoned to testify before the grand jury regarding that meeting.

The complaint alleges that Walter Arsenault told Caruso before testifying that "Remember Kerik vouched for Larry Ray at the Walkers' meeting and everything will be O.K." (Arsenault was appearing as an assistant D.A. at the Bronx grand jury and is also the First Deputy Commissioner of the DOI.)

The complaint says Caruso had already told Arsenault the day previous that he "could not truthfully testify" to that; he did not.

Three days later, Caruso was terminated from the DOI. His complaint alleges his removal was in "retaliation" for providing "truthful grand jury testimony" and "because of the relationship between Plaintiff and Kerik."

A month prior to his termination, the complaint claims, Caruso's boss wrote to him that he'd be named Inspector General of the Sanitation Department and given a raise—and be given a larger office.

The six counts include wrongful discharge and defamation, and a demand for jury trial. No filed response to the complaint was available in the U.S. District Court. Caruso's lawyer did not immediately return a call to his office.

—Choire Sicha with Theodore Bressman

"I think Jane needs a new infusion of energy and a smart marketing and advertising plan," Lamadrid said by phone today. "I sort of pride myself on being a turnaround specialist, and Jane is a great opportunity."

Lamadrid's last day at Men's Journal will be Friday, and he starts at Jane on Monday.

-Gabriel Sherman

Wallace had headed Wenner Books since 2003, when it was founded as on outlit for publishing titles inspired by Wenner magazines. Among Wallace's offerings are the poker title Aces and Kings, the romance chronicle Brad and Jen: The Rise and Fall of Hollywood's Golden Couple, and Bling Bling: Hip-Hop's Crown Jewels.

Wallace could not be reached for comment; his Wenner phone extension was disconnected. A Wenner spokesperson said: "Wenner books is alive and well with a full catalogue for 2006 including titles from Us Weekly, Rolling Stone, and Men's Journal. Bob Wallace, who has had a long, esteemed career with Wenner Media, left his position on Friday and will pursue other opportunities. The departure was amicable."

--Gabriel Sherman

"It's getting closer to the real value. Hopefully, with the new price, it will get more action," said exclusive broker Carrie Chiang, a senior vice president of the Corcoran Group.

Mr. Shabtai could not be reached for comment.

A single-family home along the limestone-and-granite corridor of New York's power elite is a rare find. In 2000, the Israeli-born Mr. Shabtai, 54, purchased the property from Judith Stern Peck, the ex-wife of Tribeca Grand Hotel owner Leonard Stern, for $8.2 million.

The property has quite a design legacy. Originally built in 1974, it was renovated in 1976 by Robert A.M. Stern and John S. Hagmann. A fire severely damaged the property in 1992, and Ms. Stern hired Costas Kondylis for a second pass. The renowned condominium architect-whose downtown development at Morton Square is doubling as the Olsen twins' dormitory-redesigned the interior. Ms. Stern listed the property throughout the 1990's, asking upward of $10 million in April 1998, before Mr. Shabtai negotiated $550,000 off the $8.75 million asking price when he nabbed it in July 2000.

Mr. Shabtai then went about undertaking a luxurious renovation of his own. The four-story residence retains the classic façade designed by Mr. Stern and has six bedrooms, five full baths and two powder rooms. Other luxuries include a glass-walled living room with views over Park Avenue, a spiral staircase, a paneled library and a spa-style master bathroom with a built-in gas fireplace and a 28-foot dressing room. The listing of the property also includes plans for a 1,100-square-foot private roof garden with a gazebo and a hot tub. If potential buyers fret over the daily schlep up the spiral staircase, the home also has a four-passenger elevator.

Now, with its nearly 10 percent discount, Mr. Shabtai may be one step closer to finding an approving buyer.

Men's Journal editor in chief Michael Caruso recently landed a $1.24 million Tribeca loft, city records show. In June, according to property records on file with the city, Mr. Caruso closed on a 2,000-square-foot former artist's studio on Murray Street, between Church and Broadway. The deal marks a return to downtown for the editor of the venerable Jann Wenner–published men's magazine.

"I used to have a place in Tribeca. I really like the neighborhood," Mr. Caruso told The Observer .

The fifth-floor apartment is a loft that formerly belonged to the artist Richard Boch, city records show. According to The New York Times , Mr. Boch moved into the loft in the late 1970's at a bargain-basement $400-a-month lease. In 2001, the mixed-use building at 9 Murray Street, which is also the site of the New Amsterdam branch of the New York Public Library, was converted from 14 rentals into condos. Mr. Caruso signed a contract to buy the place from Mr. Boch in April, before closing the deal in June.

He's not the only hard-charging editor in Mr. Wenner's stable of magazines to have a penchant for downtown real estate. In June 2003, Janice Min, the Us Weekly editor, scored a $1.75 million loft in the high-design Porter House lofts on West 15th Street in the meatpacking district. Her fellow neighbors in the building include Molly Shannon and fashion designer Carlos Miele.

Actor Harold Perrineau has traded a flashy Tribeca loft for a tropical paradise. In March, city records show, the actor-who recently appeared alongside Keanu Reeves in The Matrix Revolutions -sold his Warren Street loft for $1.15 million. The Brooklyn native is now living in Hawaii while filming the television series Lost , a drama about the survivors of a plane crash on a remote tropical island, which was recently signed for 11 episodes. So long, New York winters! "He's in limbo figuring out where he is going to live," Mr. Perrineau's manager, Stacy Abrams, said of the actor's current domestic plans. "If the show gets signed again, he'll live where they end up filming."

Mr. Perrineau left behind a prime piece of Tribeca. His former 1,600-square-foot apartment, on Warren Street between Broadway and Church Street, had two bedrooms, two marble bathrooms and details including a gourmet kitchen, a built-in washer/dryer and a video security system. The apartment first hit the market in December 2003 at $1.29 million, before Mr. Perrineau unloaded the place in March for $1.15 million to newlywed buyers-a finance executive and his attorney wife.

"It was big, minimal and airy," said Neil Levine of the Corcoran Group, who sold the loft. "They don't need to do a stitch to it. The apartment was in move-in condition."

Recent Transactions in the Real Estate Market

Upper East Side

166 East 61st Street

Two-bedroom, two-bathroom co-op.

Asking: $935,000. Selling: $940,000.

Maintenance: $1,663; 48 percent tax-deductible.

Time on the market: two months.

BIDDING UP FOR BABY After the couple who owned this renovated East Side co-op decamped to the Connecticut 'burbs so their children could frolic in a backyard, a growing family decided to trade up from a nearby apartment on 69th Street and Second Avenue to this spacious spread. In the competitive real-estate market that has descended over all of Manhattan, the couple paid $5,000 over the asking price. "They needed more space," said Leah Ozeri, a broker with the Corcoran Group who represented the buyers. The apartment, between Lexington and Third avenues, has Upper East Side staples including marble baths, open southern and eastern views, and a newly renovated kitchen. The building also offers a full-time doorman and a concierge. "It felt right for them; they loved it because it was big," Ms. Ozeri said. Anne Prosser, also of the Corcoran Group, represented the sellers.

But the topic of a U.S. invasion in Iraq has, in recent weeks, taken on an air of immediate concern-the result of articles featuring unnamed government sources leaking potential invasion scenarios to The New York Times and non-invasion The Washington Post .

"It'll be the most telegraphed maneuver in the history of mankind," said retired Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, now a senior fellow with the Center for Defense Information. "The last three months of detail and discussion has been amazing. I was in Desert Storm, where you knew a lot. But I felt we had it pretty locked-down until that first night."

Ed Rabel, a senior vice president at the Virginia public-relations firm McGinn Group and a former Pentagon correspondent for NBC News, was equally astonished. "I never, in my four years at the Pentagon, saw anything like this," Mr. Rabel said. "I did see a fair amount of leaking going on, but nothing compared with this."

It began on July 5, when The Times published news of a Pentagon plan that called for an invasion using as many as 250,000 soldiers in "air-, land- and sea-based forces" that would "attack Iraq from three directions-the north, south and west-in a campaign to topple President Saddam Hussein."

The Times unveiled more of the plan in a July 10 article, which stated that Jordan could be used as a base for the attacks, citing unnamed officials.

Then, after The Washington Post reported on Sunday, July 28, that the U.S. might just stay the present course, The Times reported on July 29 about another option considered by Pentagon and administration officials, one that would "take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government."

The leaks and their subsequent reaction have only cemented The Times' and The Post 's positions as conduits of confidential information for power brokers at the highest levels of state.

"They would never give something like this to NBC or ABC News," Mr. Rabel, who covered the Pentagon from 1993 to 1997, said. "In the eyes of the people in the Pentagon, The New York Times and Washington Post are the only outlets that really matter. The White House reads them. They're taken seriously by people in power."

Bob Zelnick, the chairman of the Boston University journalism department, who covered the Pentagon for ABC News from 1986 to 1994, agreed.

"The networks have seasoned reporters on that beat," Mr. Zelnick said. "But there's no way to approximate the depth of The New York Times . People that leak to The Times and The Post know the networks will pick up a story they leak to one of the papers. They're going to get more mileage from their leak."

Thomas Ricks, who covers the Pentagon for The Post and wrote the July 28 story, disputed that assessment, saying, "I think if anything, it's an area that's extremely competitive on getting leaks. And TV's produced a surprising number of leaks. I pay attention to the TV guys on my beat."

However, Mr. Ricks acknowledged: "If you want to be sure to get attention, The Post or The Times is the only surefire way to do it."

(Though, as Jack Shafer pointed out in Slate on July 30, The Times in its second story acknowledged that the existence of the plan in the July 5 paper had been discussed in a Los Angeles Times op-ed on June 23.)

There is, of course, history here. In 1971, after former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg tried peddling the Pentagon Papers to all three networks, it was The Times and-following a restraining order from the Nixon administration- The Post that provided him platforms for disseminating the damning report on the Vietnam War.

Nobody doubts that the leaks, and the stories based on them, have been effective-or, at the very least, provocative. On Aug. 1, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was set to discuss the administration's plans for invading Iraq.

Mr. Ricks said the Bush administration's own hold-down-the-fort mentality may be working against them.

"This administration," Mr. Ricks said, "plays its cards extremely close to its chest. That makes leaks harder to get. But it also provides a competitive advantage to well-sourced reporters."

What's less clear is the intentions behind it. Why release sensitive military information? What can be gained by letting the general public in on invasion plans?

One reporter who covered military actions in the Gulf War, Panama and Somalia felt the reasons for the leaks were obvious enough.

"The generals think they're the experts on fighting wars," said the source. "And, probably, they are. They feel slighted by the defense eggheads and politicos who think slamming Saddam is easy. If the operation fails, it's their careers and lives that are on the line. That's why the post-Vietnam military has always been more cautious than the political appointees-look at the first Gulf War and Bosnia. Most of the generals-and a lot of the spooks-want the public to know that if we're going to fight a war against Iraq, it will take time, money and lives. Most would prefer that he get toppled in a coup.

"If it comes to war, they want to make sure it will be an overwhelming victory," the source said. "Their nightmare is another Desert One-the Iran rescue operation that failed so abysmally, tarnished so many careers, and made everyone wary about using the military, at least until Grenada and Panama."

If it's a reaction the leakers wanted, they've certainly gotten it. Indeed, the recent stories have seemed to give Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld an entirely new mission.

In a July 12 memo leaked to The Los Angeles Times , Mr. Rumsfeld railed against leakers saying they were "putting America at risk."

But just how much such information would hurt the chances of the United States remains to be seen. "These, as best as I can see, are position papers at best," said James Hoge, the editor of Foreign Affairs . "They're very early plans. They haven't hurt national security in a way that I can see."

Recalling his own time within the halls of the Pentagon, Mr. Zelnick said, "Can you give me one single example where an American newspaper or report has actually put a person at risk? I used to walk through the halls asking that to people in the military, and I never got an answer."

Beginning later this year, The New York Times will begin an extended series examining the place of the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world.

According to sources at The Times , the series will focus on how America is viewed by people in other countries (read: why they hate us) and will follow in a vein similar to its series "How Race Is Lived in America," which was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in April 2001. According to sources, the series is set to begin in late 2002 and will carry into 2003.

Based primarily out of the foreign bureaus, the series will have some involvement on the domestic front, including a contribution from the sports desk.

When asked about the matter, a Times spokesperson said: "It would be inappropriate for us to discuss coverage or story ideas that we might be considering."

Jann Wenner owns three magazines. Two of those magazines- Rolling Stone and Us Weekly -have new editors. Now, Mr. Wenner might be ready to pluck one for the third.

As reported by WWD on July 26, Mr. Wenner has begun to talk with people about finding a replacement for current Men's Journal editor Sid Evans. Mr. Evans, the fourth editor in the 10-year history of Mr. Wenner's outdoor-adventure and fitness magazine, is less than two years into his tenure, after returning to the Wenner fold from GQ to replace Mark Bryant, who resigned in December 2000. Earlier, Mr. Evans-then a senior editor at Men's Journal -left for GQ after Mr. Wenner tapped Mr. Bryant in November 1999.

"It's a shame," one source told Off the Record, "Sid Evans is a good editor. Sid Evans has done everything Jann's asked him to do. It's more that [Mr. Wenner]'s just restless.

"It's spring cleaning for him," the source continued. "He's obsessive-compulsive. He couldn't do two and leave a third alone."

Mr. Wenner's flirting shouldn't come as a great surprise. After all, the arrivals of Bonnie Fuller at Us Weekly and Ed Needham at Rolling Stone have been a publicity boon for his company.

And perhaps as a sign of things to come, Men's Journal in recent weeks has resembled a leaky canoe, with executive editor Jack Wright, senior writers Alex Bhattacharji and Devin Friedman, and deputy photo editor Tom Alberty all leaving the masthead.

Mr. Evans declined to comment about his own status, but of the staff defections, he noted that until recently, Men's Journal hadn't lost anyone in "over a year and a half."

"We haven't had any staff defections in over a year and a half," Mr. Evans said. "I feel like we have an incredible staff here. I'm not surprised people were trying to snap them away. We have had a raise freeze here for over a year. Eventually, that's going to catch up to you."

Certainly, the temptation to be at the helm of Men's Journal holds a certain appeal. But the well-known travails of working for Mr. Wenner might be too much for some people … even Michael Caruso. According to sources, Mr. Wenner had reached out to Mr. Caruso, the former editor in chief of Details and the now-defunct Maximum Golf , who reportedly is also being considered as the next editorial director of Playboy . Mr. Wenner, according to sources, went so far as to offer the job to Mr. Caruso in July, but Mr. Caruso turned it down. When reached, Mr. Caruso declined to comment.

Meanwhile, a Wenner spokesperson denied that Mr. Wenner had a wandering eye.

"We're not looking," the spokesperson told Off the Record. " Men's Journal is doing very well. It's at its highest circulation ever, and we're getting ready to celebrate our 10th-anniversary issue."

According to sources at Details , the Condé Nast young men's magazine currently undergoing some growing pains, it was just such a faux pas that led to editor in chief Michael Caruso's abrupt exit on Feb. 1. When the Post printed longstanding rumors that Mr. Caruso's job was in jeopardy on Jan. 27, he responded with typical brio: "My numbers are so good, they are going to be giving me a big fat raise."

But after the article appeared, sources at Details said, Mr. Caruso demanded a meeting with Condé Nast president Steve Florio and editorial director James Truman on Feb. 1 to find out where he stood. With a few days to think, Mr. Truman called Maxim editor in chief Mark Golin, who had more than doubled his avowedly adolescent magazine's circulation in his year at the helm. They met. Mr. Golin told Off the Record that Mr. Truman "was wearing a lovely dress. It was lavender. I was wearing red. Formal. A bit dressy for the afternoon." Mr. Truman offered him the job, a big raise (a Condé Nast source put the salary at more than $600,000), and a car and driver.

Mr. Golin accepted. And just as Mr. Caruso was getting the bad news on Feb. 1, Mr. Golin marched into the office of Steve Colvin, president of Dennis Publishing in the United States, and broke the news. Then he told his staff. They weren't expecting it. "But people by law aren't allowed to cry at Maxim ," Mr. Golin said, keeping up the shtick. "In lieu of tears, I got, 'Traitor,' 'Asshole,' punches on the arm."

Things had not fared so well for Mr. Caruso. He returned from his superior's offices at 350 Madison Avenue at about 1 P.M., "clearly not happy," said one member of the Details staff. He soon called a meeting in the art department and announced: "The good news is, I get to keep the jukebox," referring to the Wurlitzer reproduction in his office. According to one witness, he expressed utter surprise at being let go. (Mr. Caruso did not return a call for comment.) "I said this to them, and I'm saying this to you, I don't understand why," he reportedly told the staff. "I've done everything you've asked all along. And since we made this change, the two covers that we've had have had huge increases. You told me it was about the newsstand and the newsstand was up 40 percent."

Of course, the changes that worked–pushing the fashion to the back, pumping up the "service well," scaling down music coverage, adding a babe-of-the-month to the front of the book, not to mention such innovations as January's "First Annual Lingerie Issue" and February's lesbian appreciation pages–were responses to, if not imitations of, Maxim . And the move to grab Mr. Golin marks Condé Nast's new, imitative strategy of checkbook editorial innovation, evidence of which includes swiping Bonnie Fuller from Hearst to Cosmopolitan -ize Glamour and giving a faltering Allure an InStyle -like makeover. "The problem with stealing the competition's leadership is that they usually continue publishing," noted one skeptical Condé Nast executive.

On the other hand, if you're going to imitate, you might as well do it right. If the Maxim -ized Details seemed a bit like a forced march, that's because it was. In his two years at the magazine, Mr. Caruso presided over an editorial exodus of sorts–four editors (including Joe Levy, Mark Healy and Danielle Mattoon, who all decamped to Rolling Stone ), one creative director (William Mullen) and a number of big-name contributing writers (Rob Sheffield to Rolling Stone , Mim Udovitch to Esquire ).

Before taking over Details , Mr. Caruso served as senior articles editor at Vanity Fair in the early 90's and as editor in chief of Los Angeles from 1995 to 1997. According to people who have worked with him, he clearly didn't want to be editing something so lowbrow. "He wanted to be an editor at a Condé Nast magazine," said one Details editor. "I don't think he ever really wanted to edit Details ." (Mr. Caruso still has a year to go on his Condé Nast contract.)

For all his success, Mr. Golin didn't really want to edit Maxim forever. " Maxim is fun," he said. "Do I want to do it for the rest of my life? No.… Details presents some challenges. It allows me to go into some areas that have more depth." So how does this short, pudgy, balding outsider who toiled in relative obscurity at Rodale Press and Cosmopolitan , and used to joke about the plush world of Condé Nast, feel about being one of Them now? "What is it that Pogo said?" he asked. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

With another week to go before Maxim 's April issue closes, not to mention three months left on his contract that he has to negotiate his way out of, Mr. Golin has already thrown himself in with his new crowd. He showed up at Details downtown offices with Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Truman on Feb. 2 to meet the skittish staff, and broke the ice by making jokes about "how he's looking forward to crushing Maxim ," said one editor. Mr. Newhouse even got in the act, joking that Mr. Golin "is the first editor in Condé Nast over whom I tower."

Mr. Golin went on to articulate his vision for the magazine, which, according to one editor present, the staff found reassuring after the veering leadership of both Mr. Caruso and Joe Dolce, his predecessor. After years of trial and error, they have someone who doesn't seem to be waiting for meddling high-concept instructions from his superiors. Mr. Golin is expected to make it funnier and less pop-culture groovy. It's not clear how the boot-camp atmosphere of Maxim is going to translate over at 4 Times Square. But he's willing to adapt. "I have a thing for titanium," he said, referring to the titanium cafeteria Condé Nast is attempting to install in the new building. "I have a titanium bed."

So when is he going to kiss and make up with GQ editor in chief Art Cooper, whose magazine he has slammed in the past? "I'll just wait and kiss him in person," said Mr. Golin.

Dow Jones & Company chairman and Wall Street Journal publisher Peter Kann made a particularly bleak entry into his employees' daily diary of the American dream on Jan. 28 when he announced the end of the company's rather generous, 50-year-old profit-sharing program. The reason? The company's run out of profits to share.

Dow Jones' lack of profits stems from several well-publicized management blunders, including a billion-dollar write-down the company took on Telerate, a failed Bloomberg-style business information system, in 1997. Under the profit-sharing plan, started in 1949, Dow Jones took the equivalent of approximately 15 percent of each employee's salary out of its own profits and funneled that back into individual retirement funds. As Mr. Kann, a former reporter and editor at The Journal , pointed out to his employees in the Jan. 28 memo, profits were so healthy in the 1980's–before the recession and the purchase of Telerate–the company socked away a "surplus" for the plan. Mr. Kann noted, however, that "after 1989, when the company's earnings were less robust," that surplus was used to keep the payout at 15 percent.

That money ran out in 1997 when Dow Jones took the Telerate hit–the first year the company recorded a loss since going public in 1963. Dow Jones made the full contribution, anyway, Mr. Kann wrote, "particularly in light of the fact that the loss was entirely attributable to Telerate … and that most of the rest of Dow Jones (including The Wall Street Journal ) had its best year ever financially." The plan was also written into the last three-year contract that the company negotiated with the Journal union, which expires April 30.

Wall Street Journal reporters and editors, proud of their heady journalistic position and used to covering the great movements of global capitalism, were caught by surprise and left feeling alienated from their labor, reduced to sending around a petition to their boss begging for a fair shake. The profit-sharing plan, no matter what the state of the company's profits (or lack thereof), had come to be expected.

"The profit-sharing plan was established in 1949, so it's basically forever," said Lisa Kaplan, the staff organizer for the formerly docile in-house union, the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees. ( Journal workers voted to affiliate with the Communications Workers of America in 1997 after the 1996 negotiations.) "People have taken it for granted. The mechanics for it were never explained. And the 15 percent level of contribution was taken as a given when the paper was making new hires."

Needless to say, Journal employees aren't happy. Many direct their ire at Dow Jones chief financial officer Jerry Bailey, who was brought in from Salomon Brothers Inc. last April to straighten out the company's financial woes. Mr. Bailey uses management theory euphemisms like "process redesign" to explain such painful business decisions. (According to an article in Editor & Publisher magazine, Mr. Bailey recently explained "process redesign" at a Paine Webber Inc. media conference as a way to streamline a company, though "not just … a disguised form of layoffs.")

"We don't get bonuses and aren't paid overtime," said one reporter. "You can take a loan against it, use it for collateral. You can do a lot with it. This is what we retire on."

"It's the equivalent of saying we're going to cut your salary 15 percent," said another reporter, who noted that in addition to being a recruitment and retention tool (you have to be there three years before you're invested in it), it makes up for the somewhat lower salaries The Journal pays compared to The Washington Post and The New York Times .

Telerate isn't the only venture Dow Jones has bungled recently. On Jan. 26, managment made another happy announcement. "As part of the company-wide process redesign effort," a memo stated, the Global News Management System, which replaced Xywrite as the word processing system at the paper last year, was getting dumped overboard at a cost of $17.3 million. Executive editor Paul Steiger noted that the editorial staff's "patience, goodwill and good humor will be necessary."

That may be difficult under the current circumstances, especially with a new–and potentially contentious–contract negotiation coming up.

"Nobody ever said, either by the formula that was inside of it or by the way that it was done, that it would go on forever," said Dow Jones spokesman Richard Tofel, referring to the old profit-sharing plan. "Does the company acknowledge that they have an obligation to help its employees with retirement? Yes. Will our pay packages remain competitive? Yes." Mr. Tofel pointed to a memo sent around on Sept. 15, which warned the employees that "over the longer term, the profit-sharing plan should be replaced with a more modern retirement plan."

"It's a misnomer to call it a profit-sharing plan," Mr. Tofel went on. "In 1997, there were no profits. In 1998, if you used the plan formulas, you would have gotten to 1.8 percent … still better than The New York Times , but still not adequate to help people retire." He denied that this had anything to do with Telerate or other recent management decisions gone sour. "I don't see how you can even connect the dots," he said. "In fact, exactly the reverse is true. Because of how well the paper is doing, we made the contribution, anyway." As for the future of the company, Mr. Tofel said, "Telerate is gone. The company's fortunes are on the rise. All of the analysts say so." Mr. Kann was traveling and not available for comment.

Meanwhile, amid staff jokes about leaving 15 percent early and working 15 percent less, the grousing has begun. "They think it's the be-all and end-all to work at The Wall Street Journal ," said one reporter. But "we have to feed our family, send our kids to school. [The employment package] is really not that competitive when you look at other media. Especially these days, when there is so much competition and so many outlets."

Another reporter put it in more prosaic terms. "We're living our lead anecdotes," she said.

Vanity Fair deputy editor George Hodgman, whom editor Graydon Carter plucked from the less fabulous world of book publishing six years ago to help make that fat glossy hum with something besides just celebrity awe, seems to be having a bit of a midlife crisis. He gave four weeks' notice on Jan. 25, the week of his 40th birthday, saying he was "burnt out" and wanted time to write. He will probably continue as a contributing editor. "Graydon understands … that things change when you're 40," said Mr. Hodgman, who edits Gail Sheehy, Kim Masters, Peter Biskind and Buzz Bissinger. "A magazine is not a substitute for a life," Mr. Hodgman said.