Code conflicts in blogosphere

When Michael Tunison, reporter for the "Washington Post," was fired recently for his "blogging at a sports-themed Web site [...] after editors came across some profane-laden postings that also identified him as a Post scribe." Uh-oh.

Tunison defends his blog postings, saying:

There was no conflict of interest between my writing for Kissing Suzy Kolber and my work for The Washington Post. The blog is not a journalistic endeavor and it is not something I was paid for until I revealed my identity. [...] I also find it troubling that I was summarily fired for engaging in something that is core to the spirit of The Washington Post: full disclosure. Even if editors had a problem with the language used in the blog, they should have been able to respect that my goal was not to defame The Post, but to be forthcoming with my readers.

His editors, though, are sticking to their guns, citing two ethical standards the Post expects from their employees:

•We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper.

•Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post.

But the answer isn't clear. Do these standards apply to the blogosphere as well? When does a blog conflict with writing for a paper? Traditional media outlets need to readjust their ethical codes to include what they expect from their employees in regards to their activities within the blogosphere, especially on what blog topics would constitute a conflict of interest. If not, there will be a lot more cases like Tunison's popping up.