Now this is truly bizarre: While it makes sense that publisher Condé Nast would cut down the frequency of Portfolio and take their necessary 5% of flesh out of the magazine, why is Portfolio.com being "severely scaled back" when common sense (and trend reports) would say it's the only part of the operation that still has a chance to become lucrative?

Sure, cuts are being made everywhere, but going from a staff of 12 to a staff of 3 (or so says the rumor mill) is not letting go five percent, it's trimming 75% of the online workforce.

"It's a bloodbath," we hear, "But a very slow and polite one."

And as others have mentioned, it makes no sense to cut the majority of the publication's online content, since that is the most relevant part of the business mag, which now will only put out 10 issues a year. If you are supposed to be covering current financial events, it's hard to remain relevant when you go to print 3 weeks after your last article was written.

We're just saying: If Portfolio gets rid of Jeff Bercovici, they are doing themselves a great disservice. He's the best thing the whole operation has going for it right now, and Condé Nast execs and Joanne Lipman would be wise to hire more writers like him, instead of firing everybody from their website and hoping that it won't hurt subscription rates.