In journalism, when there's there's anything resembling a conflict of interest (even if it's nothing more than a hint, or whiff of subjectivity) it's generally best to acknowledge said perceived bias right away, thereby removing any/all suspicions that anything untoward has taken place.

Take, for example, this full disclosure excerpted from Jon Weiner's piece in The Nation regarding the recent changes at LA Weekly.

Alert to readers: The Weekly has published my work and also rejected submissions of mine; it's reviewed me, and I've reviewed for it; I have friends who have worked there and friends who still do, including Marc Cooper, a Nation contributing editor.

Comprehensive, no? In fact, almost unnecessarily so. But in cases such as this, it's always better to err on the side of caution lest you be accused of deliberately withholding information, or worse, of allowing your actions to be dictated by commercial interests.

In other words, exactly what's happened with the New York Times right now.

Surprisingly, it's Page Six who deigns to publicly question the Times' journalistic ethics, based on what seems to be an overt omission on the part of Bill Keller & co.

Writes the NYP:

THE New York Times seemed to ignore its ethical guidelines on Wednesday when it published an Op-Ed piece by Ben Dolnick without informing readers his mother, Lynn Dolnick, sits on the Times board of directors - which is chaired by their cousin, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

The Times prides itself on strict separation between editorial decisions and the commercial interests of its owners. It recently attacked News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch for alleged meddling in news operations. News Corp. owns The Post.

So eyebrows were raised when the Times Op-Ed page ran Dolnick's piece about working at the Central Park Zoo one summer, a valuable promotion for his new book. The Times described the 24-year-old Brooklynite simply as "the author of 'Zoology,' a novel."

Other evidence that the Times' moral compass might be on the fritz? The fact that Christmas "gift" accepting, rumor-mongering, quid pro quo seeking gossips over at Page Six had to lecture America's pre-eminent daily newspaper on Ethics 101