Last summer, Media Matters' Jamison Foser noted Howard Kurtz's penchant for failing to disclose his relationship with CNN when covering the network for the Washington Post and failing to note his relationship with the Washington Post when covering the paper for CNN.

When Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander confronted Kurtz with one such example, the well-known media reporter indicated it “was an oversight and won't be repeated.” Of course the same “oversight” has happened time and again since Alexander quoted Kurtz.

Today, Betsy Rothstein of MediaBistro.com's FishbowlDC looks at another facet of Kurtz's journalistic ethics, his "double dipping" (her words):

At a party, it's the makings of a Seinfeld episode to catch someone double dipping his chips and dip. But it is occasionally permissible for CNN and WaPo's Howard Kurtz to host “Reliable Sources” on CNN and then use that same material for his WaPo “Media Notes” column. In reverse, Kurtz has used his WaPo column and turned it into material for his show.

Illegal, no. But is it ethical to regurgitate your own reporting for multiple news sources? In an ever changing journalism profession where journos hold down multiple jobs, no doubt this gets confusing.

Kurtz typically quotes from a variety of reporters and publications in his WaPo “Media Notes” column, not just CNN. But check out Kurtz's column from today's edition of WaPo and watch what he does with his CNN interview Sunday with Newsweek's Jon Meacham.

Rothstein then notes Kurtz's “double dipping” of his CNN interview with Newsweek editor Jon Meacham from yesterday, portions of which ended up appearing in his column from today's Washington Post.

It's worth noting that Kurtz did provide comment to MediaBistro.com saying, “I almost never use material from 'Reliable Sources' for The Washington Post,” and that he had his editor's permission.

I suppose there is no way of knowing if Kurtz routinely uses resources from one of his gigs to benefit the other unless of course you count his actual reporting on one outlet that benefits the other, a practice Media Matters has noted in the past.

Ultimately it comes down to an issue of trust.

As I said above, after he was called on the carpet for not disclosing his conflicts of interest when reporting on CNN and the Post he vowed that the “oversight” wouldn't be repeated but in the weeks following the controversy it did happen again (and again, and again, and again.)

That's why I have so much trouble trusting the most well known media reporter in the country -- his track record makes it difficult.