Heh.  The New York Times writes on what would be a Blogger code of conduct, which is funny since the idea appears in, once again, the New York Times where there is actually a code of conduct that isn’t followed.

Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.

“If it’s a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,” Mr. Wales said.”

Well, there could be badges and what not, or people might actually have to read the content and then decide whether or not they wish to continue reading.  You know, kind of like how consumers already do with media organizations.  And from the looks of things, it would be more sound if the Times decided to look at its own production and find out why its own numbers are falling.

But this entire critique always leaves out the most important thing.  For the most part, bloggers are not journalists, and no one in their right mind goes to a blog looking for straight news without commentary.  Come to think of it, neither does anyone who reads the Times.