I enjoyed the inaugural bi-weekly column by Daniel Okrent, the new public editor of The New York Times. In discussing how a reporter with a recently published book covered a pharmaceutical issue, Okrent made the correct argument that the appearance of conflict is what a paper must avoid.

This is why the Times Company's ownership interest in the Boston Red Sox is indefensible. Even worse, the Times hasn't disclosed this ownership at the most important times -- for example, in a NYT editorial regarding a possible Major League Baseball strike. When the Times first acquired this interest, its PR person said that there was a conflict only if Times reporters were controlled by management in the way they covered the Red Sox. Under Okrent's more stringent test, this argument is totally wrong.

The appearance of conflict is also bad business. Does anyone really trust MSG Network for real analysis of management problems of the Knicks and Rangers? The insight and credibility of Al Trautwig, Marv Albert and Sam Rosen are wasted because, whatever rules the network has regarding commentary, they appear to be puppets of Cablevision. SportsDesk used to have one of sports television's best hosts, Bob Page, until he criticized Rangers management (correctly) one time too many.

At least it's common for TV commentators and sports teams to be under the same management umbrella. When the Times bought part of the Red Sox, the stated business purpose was to create synergy between New England print, radio and television media and the sports team--in other words, precisely to set up the appearance of conflicts that now are almost never disclosed.