BROOKE GLADSTONE: This week the New York Times unveiled its new expanded ethics policy -- all 53 pages of it. Under the new policy, for example, reporters are barred from having a financial interest in any entity they cover, and columnists, op-ed writers and editors on the masthead are barred from owning any stock except the New York Times. Political expression is verboten. No contributing to campaigns. No displays by journalists or their families of political bumper stickers, campaign buttons or lawn signs. And many more Do's and - mostly -Don't's. Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute dedicated his column this week to the revised New York Times ethics code, applauding its rigor, clarity and detail; and he joins me now. Welcome to the show!

BOB STEELE: Thank you, Brooke!

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what do you think about the code? It's certainly comprehensive.

BOB STEELE: And it's realistic. Those that created this document clearly state in there in several ways that this isn't the end-all, be-it-all for employees of the New York Times; there will be issues that come up that they'll have to parse and peel, but the tone of the code serves the purpose of clear standards and good decision-making process.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:It has been criticized as rather draconian in places. The rules on stock ownership, for example. Under the old policy, only some business section employees were barred from owning stock in companies on which they directly reported. Under the revised policy, all staff members are barred from having a financial interest in an entity that they cover regularly as a reporter or an editor. But can't full disclosure anticipate any accusations of conflict of interest?

BOB STEELE: Well disclosure alone does not mitigate wrongdoing nor does disclosure eliminate problems when they exist, so merely saying we've got a, a difficult connection, competing loyalty, conflict of interest does not make it go away.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:Fair enough, but the part of the policy that particularly concerns me as a journalist is the one that seems to bar all participation in the political process. The rule stipulates that a staffer could be re-assigned to avoid conflicts if a family member or a spouse is engaged in a political activity or partisan action! It strikes me that they're calling for a journalist to abrogate part of their responsibility as a citizen in order to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest!

BOB STEELE: Well I don't know anything that says journalists must actively participate or citizens must actively participate in the political life of this country. We should, I do believe, vote in order to carry out or civic duty in a democracy, and the Times not only doesn't prohibit that but I believe encourages that. A key point here, Brooke -- that journalists regularly tell stories about other professionals in other organizations in our society where conflict of interest erodes their professionalism and can harm the public good. It is disingenuous in fact outright hypocritical for journalists then to say that conflicts of interest are not that big a deal in our profession. If we're shining the light of scrutiny on others from physicians to lawmakers to government officials, we should be shining the light of scrutiny on ourselves and holding ourselves to exceptionally high standards.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Okay! Bob, thanks a lot.

BOB STEELE: My pleasure.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Bob Steele is director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:In November 2000 the on line magazine Slate polled its writers on how they voted in the presidential election. The results were overwhelmingly pro-Gore. Michael Kinsley, then editor in chief of Slate, wrote a column titled Most of Us Voted Democratic -- Does That Prove We're Biased? Michael, welcome back to the show.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Thanks, Brooke.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So does that prove you're biased?

MICHAEL KINSLEY: This is something people really don't understand. There is a fundamental difference between having an opinion and being biased. Any intelligent person, it seems to me, ought to develop an opinion. I'd be very suspicious of anyone who, who claimed not to have an opinion. I'd even be more suspicious of someone who didn't have one.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what were you trying to achieve with the poll of Slate writers?

MICHAEL KINSLEY:Well, we figured that since people inevitably have opinions and we couldn't do anything about that, the best thing we could do would be to let the reader know what their opinions were so that they could factor that into judging what we write.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: We were speaking with Bob Steele from the Poynter Institute and he says that mere disclosure doesn't solve the problem.

MICHAEL KINSLEY:I think disclosure is sometimes not enough. I think that for example financial reporters --it's not really enough simply to disclose their stock holdings. There really should be substantive rules that say don't invest in companies in the area you are reporting.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: What about the rules against participation in political expression?

MICHAEL KINSLEY:There's a history to that I believe. It's, it's the Linda Greenhouse Rule. Linda Greenhouse is their very highly-regarded Supreme Court correspondent, and she wanted to go to or actually did go to a pro-choice rally, and that's what led to this rule, I believe, after various iterations. It's a very odd theory that journalists should keep things under wraps, should keep them a secret as a service to their newspaper, because journalism is about not keeping things secret, but about reporting things and a belief that sunlight is the best disinfectant. So-- you have to be suspicious of the argument that you should not reveal things in order to increase your credibility.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:Do you think that journalism in general is broken? Do you think it needs to be fixed or, or cured by prescriptions like the Times' code of ethics?

MICHAEL KINSLEY: I do think that the Times under its new editor, Howell Raines, has become a bit looser in defining what is a, a straightforward news story and is slightly more liberal overall if you had to assess its balance, and the New York Times seems to be deciding to give itself a bit more leeway about presenting things which imply or explicitly state an opinion. I don't think that's anything so terrible, and it's analogous to Slate's open acknowledgment of the voting of its various writers, and I would urge the Times to go more toward disclosure and less towards rules that are the opposite of disclosure -- actually covering up people's views without preventing them from having them as a way of accommodating this new freedom their giving themselves which I think is a basically very good thing.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:The New York Times sets the standards for newspapers across the country. Do you expect that this code of ethics will be picked up in other places?

MICHAEL KINSLEY: The New York Times is the best newspaper in America. It might influence other newspapers in two ways. One is through this code of ethics; and the other is through its model of, of giving its reporters a little bit more leeway in expressing the opinions that its rules say they're not allowed to have. [LAUGHTER] I hope they adopt the second and not the first.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Michael Kinsley, thank you very much.

MICHAEL KINSLEY: Thank you, Brooke.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Michael Kinsley is the former editor and the founder of Slate.com.