I probably ought to say something about the New York Times piece on ScienceBlogs yesterday, except, well, there's not much to say. It's about two paragraphs in a media column, focussed entirely on the fact that they're going to try to sell ads on these sites (presumably, the big Seed ad on the right will become an ad for SigmaPlot, or something...). It doesn't really mention the content of the sites, except in passing.
(The article does continue the fine tradition of the New York Times writing articles about organizations I'm associated with without mentioning my name...)
I do want to follow many of my fellow ScienceBloggers by reiterating that while there will be ads (eventually), they will have no impact on the content of the site. The contract I signed explicitly states that there will be no editorial oversight of what I write, and in the unlikely event that I get any pressure to say nice things about the advertisers, I'm gone.
Of course, that leaves open the question of self-censorship, which is an interesting problem...