There’s a wonderful je ne sais quois about MSM types belittling bloggers over lack of standards and codified ethics.

From a philosophical standpoint, what is worse — not having ethics or having ethics and not following them (see CBS, Jayson Blair and Howell Raines, and a long list of journalistic miscreants chronicled at this blog)?

So it is to laugh reading Adam Cohen’s column in The New York Times, “The Latest Rumbling in the Blogosphere: Questions About Ethics.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about ethics — I promptly and publicly correct errors, I don’t take money or gifts, and I avoid deleting posts unless it is trolling. But watching the Times (or any MSM agency) lecture the blogs on mainstream journalism rules and ethics is something to behold.

Cohen attempts to do so in his column with the following paragraph. As a public service, I have added recent incidents that blow a Roseanne Barr-sized hole in his argument (my notes are in boldface brackets):

Every mainstream news organization has its own sets of ethics rules, but all of them agree broadly on what constitutes ethical journalism. Information should be verified before it is printed [Like the laughingly inaccurate Washington Post coverage of the “talking points memo”], and people who are involved in a story should be given a chance to air their viewpoints, especially if they are under attack [Which the NYT itself failed to do last month by agreeing with a source not to contact the other side of the story]. Reporters should avoid conflicts of interest, even significant appearances of conflicts, and disclose any significant ones [Like these columnists and journalists paid to pander]. Often, a conflict means being disqualified to cover a story or a subject [Like how CNN contributors James Carville and Paul Begala were allowed to be unpaid Kerry advisors]. When errors are discovered or pointed out by internal or external sources, they must be corrected [see the aforementioned “talking points memo” coverage]. And there should be a clear wall between editorial content and advertising.

And as Michelle Malkin points out, Cohen himself did not give Malkin “a chance to air their viewpoints, especially if they are under attack” when he attacked her book.

Cohen’s list, unfortunately, was the closest that he came to facts in a column that blames the blogosphere for a dearth of fact-checking. His take on the CNN news chief Eason Jordan’s resignation?

Eason Jordan, CNN’s chief news executive, resigned this year after a blogmob attacked him for a reported statement at the World Economic Forum at Davos that the military had aimed at journalists in Iraq and killed 12 of them. Their complaint was even more basic than in Mr. Rather’s case: they were upset that Mr. Jordan said something they believed to be untrue.

No, we were upset that Eason Jordan couldn’t prove what he alleged. You know, a journalist having facts to back a claim? I can’t believe this was printed in The New York Times, and Cohen’s column is a prima facie example of why I don’t have much faith in the Times’ plan to improve its journalism. So the problem wasn’t that the head of one of the world’s most visible news agencies made war crimes allegations without proof, the problem rests with the blogosphere for calling him on it?!

It gets worse, as Cohen launches a few unsupportable allegations himself:

But Mr. Rather’s and Mr. Jordan’s misdeeds would most likely not have landed them in trouble in the world of bloggers, where few rules apply. Many bloggers make little effort to check their information, and think nothing of posting a personal attack without calling the target first - or calling the target at all. They rarely have procedures for running a correction. The wall between their editorial content and advertising is often nonexistent. (Wonkette, a witty and well-read Washington blog, posts a weekly shout-out inside its editorial text to its advertisers, including partisan ones like Democrats.org.) And bloggers rarely disclose whether they are receiving money from the people or causes they write about.

First and foremost, only a handful of newspapers put their ethics guidelines on-line for their readers, so Cohen can’t claim the high ground. But let’s continue …

I can’t speak for all blogs, but the ones I visit do indeed have such rules. We do check our information, and unlike the MSM, we link to it so you, the reader, can determine its provenance for yourself. Ironically, the Times’ report released today suggested placing documents and transcripts on-line to do the same — wonder where they got that idea?

We make attempts to e-mail MSM figures that we blog about, but as for me, they never return the e-mail, so more often than not it’s a waste of my time. Again referring to the Times’ study, didn’t the commission conclude that the Gray Lady “… makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being”?

And as for blog corrections, we change the text with a note explaining the error. I’ll tell you, it’s a lot more public than the MSM. Newspapers nestle corrections in on small type inside the paper. And when is the last time you saw an evening news broadcast run a correction?

Yes, Mr. Cohen, blogs can improve. But an ethics lecture from the MSM, and one of elite media’s flagships at that, is like getting a lecture on modest apparel from Britney Spears.

UPDATE: Patterico has a fun take on Cohen’s column. And to be true to Cohen, Patterico even e-mailed him for a response, which he did not get.