The Internet for years has been cutting into the circulation bases and advertising revenue of daily newspapers. The dailies have been generally slow to adapt as Web sites offered the timeliest possible news, blogs, and compelling online presentations that featured lots of links to outside and related resources.

One less positive development when it comes to online news and journalism has been the ever-more-fuzzy distinction between blogs--with their lack of fact checking, their flame-oriented reader comments, and other shortcomings--and the journalistic work that drives daily newspapers. Particularly for twenty-somethings and those even younger, I wonder whether they can recognize the difference between blogs and the more traditional forms of reporting and journalism in newspapers.

But recent events should make that distinction more clear and raise the level of accountability among bloggers. A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the Los Angeles Times was using pseudonyms to post comments on his and other blogs, including comments that deal with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.

The reporter was suspended by the Times, his column and blog were axed, and he'll be reassigned upon his return. In an explanation to readers, the Times said, "...employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times' ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world."

The widespread adoption of blogging makes it extremely difficult for an organization like this to apply commonsense rules that respect the integrity of its traditional products and readers and require its employees to apply similar ethics online. The Times has succeeded in doing both. It's allowing high-profile writers to blog while also holding them accountable. That's a noteworthy step forward for blogging, and for newspapers as they try to balance online and offline businesses.