Discuss amongst yourselves
Three: Another Patterico commenter thought that perhaps Hiltzik's kids, if he has kids, could have been defending their dad’s honor by posting from his home computer under pseudonyms when he wasn't looking. This is credible only if you think that teenagers can easily mimic the writing style of boring middle-aged business columnists.
Some of Hiltzik's comments, especially the ones under pseudonyms, sound a lot like the crap you'd expect from teenagers. It's a moot issue now, however, as Hiltzik has admitted that the pseudonymous comments were his own.
After many recent examples, this one should prove once and for all how illegitimate and discredited the Pulitzers have become (or perhaps always were).
Three cheers for Walter Duranty!
I like Michael Hiltzik's work as a reporter and columnist. He's smart and incisive and brings a broader range of understanding and sympathy to bear in his coverage than many business reporters I've read. But it's unquestionably true that he exercised very poor judgment in this instance.
My overall view of Patrick Frey is negative. I see him as an extreme partisan who cares little about journalism. In this instance, however, he deserves only praise. He was right to disclose his discovery and was completely on target in pointing out why Michael's deception mattered. Whatever else one can say about him, Patrick's a very intelligent and determined individual.
I disagree with those who are calling for Michael's head. I think "Golden State" has been a great column and I hope it continues. Voices like Michael's deserve to be heard. I also hope the LAT continues to field bloggers willing to take the fight to the paper's right-wing critics, despite Michael's stumble here. Ultimately, it's the reading public who will benefit.
Kukla and Ollie, sans Fran. That brings back some memories. I feel more and more sympatico with Cathy with each post... though no doubt she would find that alarming
I was dissappointed when I took Russian at UCSB kukla -- ????? -- is just Russian for puppet. I don't know what Ollie means.
Laugh out loud post & column... I don't know why I love this stuff so much, but I do.
Two inconsequential errors in your column... link to Golden State blog is broken. Also Patterico is (I think!) a county prosecutor (DA works for Cooley) and not not a city prosecutor (who works for Rocky). I know at least one DA who would not take kindly to such a mis-label.
Tim, you can stand up now. I think Michael is satisfied. I can tell by the sloppy grin on his face.
Hiltzik is a jerk with a thin skin. I sent him an e-mail a few months ago after reading a piece by Mickey Kaus. What followed was an amazingly mean spirited exchange which ended with him telling me I was a disgrace to Dartmouth.
I mean, Jeez! I was an anonymous e-mailer who thought he had said something stupid. The NRO folks get those from lefties all day long and publish the most amusing of them.
The amazing thing to me is that his book Dealers of Lightning was terrific. I suppose I'm now going to find out that half out it was BS.
Patrick Frey is an assistant DA and works for Cooley.
Why on earth do they need to "field bloggers willing to take the fight to the paper's right - wing critics?" This sounds like a very defensive technique, and more than a little thin - skinned to boot.
No one has a bigger platform and mouthpiece than the MSM/LAT and others of their ilk. The fact that they even need to resort to tactics like this just conforms to their critic's perceptions of bias and ivory - tower reporting.
No wonder their circ. and revenues are sucking wind these days - their actions bespeak of desperation and the continuing infantilization of their readership.
I tried to resubscribe to the LAT twice in the last year and just couldn't do it. The second time they screwed up the subscription process (attention business editor) and were writing me nasty collection letters a month after I suscribed and before I'd gotten a bill. I had been a subscriber since the days they endorsed Republicans (Nixon in 1960) and that is a good while. I quit in 2003.
Has anyone else noticed the thundering silence on Washington Monthly's blog about the difficulties of their guest blogger Hiltzik ? Kevin is too busy writing pieces about "Conservative Crackup." The left is good at looking for the mote in conservative eyes.
This seems like an awfully trivial thing to be suspending a columnist. Pseudonymous posting is part of the blogosphere, so why does the LA Times not get that?
Hey, that is pretty unethical. Especially for a credentialed bigshot, etc.
That's true! You're so smart, David N. Scott!
And dreamy!
Yes, Patterico is a conservative, and sometimes nitpicky at the Times. But Patterico has been willing to criticize conservative misconceptions too, such as relying on Michael Crichton. He deserves credit for this. (As does Cathy for calling out Michael Fumento's misdeeds). The Times would benefit from hiring Patterico as an investigative reporter or editor. His case for Hiltzik's sock puppetry was simply stupendous.
And as for Hiltzik's language - - well, based on his example, I'm going to clean up my own act and avoid getting into any more flame wars. It just looks foolish to observers. That's especially important when one is the blog proprietor.
Cathy handles abusive posters wisely, by using understatement and irony, and even being willing to be the butt of the joke. Hiltzik just got purple-faced and screamed insults.
The point, which Patterico made, is NOT that Hiltzik commented under a pseudonym. It's that he pretended to be several people, and praised and/or agreed with himself on his own blog and others', creating what looked like agreement with his own views by a number of other people, when it was really just him. That's why the LA Times' statement is sorta dishonest -- it makes it seem as if the problem is Hiltzik not identifying himself as a LA Times reporter (which I guess may be a problem for the Times also), when from the blogosphere POV the problem is the creation of what another blogger called a "false concordance" about his views. Pretending to be a bunch of other people in order to pump up otherwise non-existent support for your own views is dishonest manipulation of opinion.
"you'd think a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper writer might be able to muster up at least as much guts as an anonymous blog commenter."
Not if Jimmy and Johnny were Hiltzik.
What said it all for me was that one of Hiltzik's alleged pseudonyms was "nofanofcablecos." Since he is a "business" writer for LAT, we have another example of this lofty "news"paper assigning people who hate businesses to cover business news.
Years ago, when I was in the economic forecasting business, I would get calls from reporters. The OC Register and Daily News reporters were pretty neutral, asking questions like "what do you think is going to happen here?" or "how does this thing work?" But the LAT reporters would typically say "Don't you think that ...?" and try to get you to agree with their spin.
Whenever I asked a LAT business reporter what his/her background was, I swear, they would say "I was in the Home section, and I just moved over to Business." But that sure didn't mean they had any lack of opinions about how things work in the business world.
"and then Jimmy began regularly insulting me, in a rude and David Ehrensteinlike manner"
SNERK!
(Burr Tillstrom was gay.)
Mike K.'s obscene rejoinder to my comment says a lot -- about Mike K.
My comment agreed with and commended Patrick Frey. And, since we're all more than the sum of our mistakes, I expressed appreciation for Michael Hiltzik's journalism. I think anyone who regularly reads his Golden State column will agree that it's written from a broader sociological perspective than most business news and that's valuable.
Evidently some posters here think this should be a conservative echo chamber. If our hostess feels the same way, I'm sure she'll let me know.
"This seems like an awfully trivial thing to be suspending a columnist. Pseudonymous posting is part of the blogosphere, so why does the LA Times not get that?"
The point is, Indomitable Spirit fired their drummer because he only had one arm.
Pseudonymous posting is part of the blogosphere, so why does the LA Times not get that?
That's not what was going on. Here:
* LONG BLOG POST BY HILTZIG ON SUBJECT A
* Randomguy disagrees on some obscure point.
* MikeKoshi says Random guy is dumb, Hiltzig is right.
* Nofanofcablecos says of course Hiltzig is right, and Mikekoshi made a very cogent comment on the subject on XYZ blog the other day too.
* Randomguy says you guys miss my point, I meant something else.
* Hiltzig says Randomguy should listen to MikeKoshi
* MikeKoshi points out another virtue of Hitlzig
OK. In that mock set up, there are only 2 real people. Hiltzig and Randomguy.
That is most definately not normal in the blogosphere.
And all of it is done on the LATimes official blog under their auspices with their name plastered all over it.
Michael Hiltzik, Internet sock puppet
Oh yeah?!? Michael Hiltzik is just a rank amateur......
FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!
I like Michael Hiltzik's work as a reporter and columnist.
I'm far more skeptical regarding anything from his mouth or pen (or word processor) now that his juvenile, foolish leftist biases have become so apparent and clear-cut.
The point, which Patterico made, is NOT that Hiltzik commented under a pseudonym. It's that he pretended to be several people, and praised and/or agreed with himself on his own blog and others', creating what looked like agreement with his own views by a number of other people, when it was really just him.
So what. Using a pseudonym or nom de plume always allows the user to pretend to be someone else. Either the points "MikeKoshi" raised were valid or not; the question of whether Hiltzik did so under the cover a different identity is completely trivial.
What followed was an amazingly mean spirited exchange
Hiltzik is an excellent example of one of those people who likely believes a left-leaning ideology makes them more humane and caring than most, when in reality they're no better, if not in fact worse, than anyone else. That's why I like writer Rob Long's comment:
Here's how he explained why the entertainment industry tilts Democrat: "If you've spent all day lying on the telephone and screwing your client out of his money and yelling at your assistant for bringing you the wrong kind of water and paying your Guatemalan maid sub-minimum wages, then maybe you, too, might need a little John Kerry in your life to make you feel good about yourself."
I think we've all forgotten what is truly important here, that Cathy is always right.
> prove once and for all how
> illegitimate and discredited
> the Pulitzers have become
Steyn said that the other day, too, and drew blood with specifics:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001554
> whether Hiltzik did so under
> the cover a different identity
> is completely trivial
Not completely, but it's not a hangin' offense either. Lasting national humiliation seems like good middle ground, and we've already found it.
It was the picture I posted that did Hiltzik in.
Yeah. That's the ticket!
In all seriousness, that kind of behavior is beyond lame.
...the question of whether Hiltzik did so under the cover a different identity is completely trivial."
Perhaps, but it also shows that the guy has absolutely no stones - whatsoever. If you can't at least represent your professional association in an upfront and transparent manner, then why be in the profession in the first place? Obviously demonstrating a definite lack of the courage of his convictions, apparently.
"Evidently some posters here think this should be a conservative echo chamber."
Try living in a virtual media echo chamber 24/7 for your entire lifetime, Tim, and then maybe we can talk about your little problem here.
Here's yet another example of the 24/7 virtual echo chamber in action:
http://
www.editorandpublisher.co...t_id=1002383107
This is the editor of the trade magazine for journalists, and look at the hysterical cant and specious reasoning entailed in his screeching polemic. Echo chamber? Liberal bias? Hey, nothing to see here...keep it moving, please....
"The amazing thing to me is that his book Dealers of Lightning was terrific. I suppose I'm now going to find out that half out it was BS."
At the very least, you'll find out that most of the rave reviews are by Hiltzik, writing under pseudonyms.
I thought that the guy was an arrogant dolt when he declared that leftist bias in the media couldn't exist because he'd proven it. Now that I know that he's his own biggest cheerleader, can we assume that there was some bias on his part when he wrote about how brilliant and insightful he was?
"I like Michael Hiltzik's work as a reporter and columnist."
You realize that we're going to have to look up your IP address now...
...and yet another specious economic "report" by the MSM media:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/04...01s02-
usec.html
The idiot here can't for the life of him understand why the GOP gets no credit for a booming economy - gee, you mean you can't come up with ONE reason, pal?
Un - freakin' - believable. And keep in mind, these stories were published just today.
Steve Smith wrote, "Either the points 'MikeKoshi' raised were valid or not; the question of whether Hiltzik did so under the cover a different identity is completely trivial."
Well, no. The points supported Hiltzik. Their validity or lack of it is not the issue. Using a sock puppet to fake someone else's agreement is like stuffing the ballot box. Vote fraud is vote fraud and illegal whether or not it affects the outcome. Using a sock puppet is not illegal. But the it's still dishonest and unethical. And that's not trivial.
A message board I post on will ban you permanently if you're found using a sock puppet.
As I read the following, I thought, hmmm, makes me of the kind of berserk place we'll end up becoming (ie, LA and California) if the leftoid mentality of people like Michael Hiltzik becomes even more pervasive-----and as crime-ridden and politically corrupt as Mexico is, other Latin American nations are even worse? Yikes!!:
AP: Venezuela is among the most violent places in Latin America, and critics of President Hugo Chavez are increasingly accusing him of failing to make crime a priority.
Relatives of 89-year-old Rodolfo Dos Santos, who was breathing through an oxygen mask, said he was shot while driving to a construction site to pay his workers....Dos Santos' son accused Chavez of virtually ignoring crime while also inciting the poor: "The president is always saying it's OK to steal in order to eat."
Chavez has not used those exact words, but he regularly launches into tirades against wealthy Venezuelans. "The rich are condemned to hell. Christ himself condemned them," Chavez said in a speech Tuesday. "I say it from the heart: to be rich is evil."
Class tension has long been a part of life in the South American country, where armed robberies, carjackings and kidnappings are frequent. There were 9,402 homicides reported in 2005, down slightly from 2004, according to government statistics. Some experts argue the real figure is higher.
Venezuela's murder rate ranked third in Latin America in a recent report by the Pan American Health Organization, behind Colombia and El Salvador.
The government has pledged sweeping police reforms and also put up $4.6 million for a gun buyback program that will offer people money to hand in revolvers and pistols.
Chavez said the latest killings show symptoms of a "sick society" warped by capitalist ambitions. "It made me want to take to the streets, too," he said, accusing his enemies of trying to manipulate the issue for political gain.
Cathy's free to do so, ody. You of all people should know how little reticence I have about posting what I honestly believe and feel under my real name.
Anonymous sock-puppets are lame.
I think that Kate has made a great point and that echo chambers are lame. Talk about self promotion.
"You of all people should know how little reticence I have about posting what I honestly believe and feel under my real name."
Good lord, Tim - it was a joke. Capiche?
Congratulations, ody, you now have a spokesman -- Dmac!
(OK, OK, just my little joke.)
Hey, at least we know you have a sense of humour.
Yeah, Dmac, I'm real lighthearted as Stalinists go. *g*
Jim C.:
Big difference between stuffing the ballot box and this. The point is not whether Hiltzik's opinion is popular; no one gets brownie points simply for making a statement that a lot of people agree with. It's whether he's making a good point. Using a pseudonym on other websites allows him to raise issues without them being colored by the author's public persona. Since there's no victim, I don't see why the Times suspended him.
As far as his own site is concerned, well, frankly, I would have been more impressed if his dopples had been making contrary points. That would have shown him willing to generate a debate, even on slow days.
"You of all people should know how little reticence I have about posting what I honestly believe and feel under my real name."
Yes, and I also know that there are times when you have no idea that your leg is being pulled.
"Using a pseudonym on other websites allows him to raise issues without them being colored by the author's public persona."
Really? I thought it "allows" a self - important narcissistic douchebag to inflate his own abysmally low self - esteem.
You're trafficking in an original kind of moral relativism on this issue.
Actually, in the workaday world, I'm famous for making people laugh -- sometimes intentionally, even.
Even though I had never heard of Hiltzik before today, I thoroughly enjoyed the NRO article. It hadn't been posted yet when I wrote earlier. And I think that Kenneth from Alabama is the most brilliant poster of comments here besides being a handsome man.
All this concern about what people write in the comments sections of blogs is sooooo gay. I mean, it isn't as though anyone ever reads that stuff.
Of course, Kenneth from Alabama is far wittier (and probably handsomer, too, if Amabala can be trusted.)
"Congratulations, ody, you now have a spokesman -- Dmac!"
Then I am truly honored.
"Big difference between stuffing the ballot box and this. The point is not whether Hiltzik's opinion is popular; no one gets brownie points simply for making a statement that a lot of people agree with. It's whether he's making a good point. Using a pseudonym on other websites allows him to raise issues without them being colored by the author's public persona. Since there's no victim, I don't see why the Times suspended him."
I guess that the Times sees a distinction between having a roomful of people who think the same way and pretending to have a roomful of people who think the same way.
"As far as his own site is concerned, well, frankly, I would have been more impressed if his dopples had been making contrary points. That would have shown him willing to generate a debate, even on slow days."
If he really used a second persona to play devil's advocate and force himself to hone his debate, then I'd agree, but if he just set up an opposing straw man to demolish, then what's the difference? I used to play chess against myself (before those electronic versions came out), and it's very difficult to give yourself a good game because of the temptation to favor one side over the other.
Still, it would be interesting to have a sock puppet debate.
"Still, it would be interesting to have a sock puppet debate."
No it wouldn't.
Yes, it would.
Lite Beer tastes great!
No, it's less filling...
This fellow is symptomatic of just how bad the Times has gotten. It used to be a great fishwrap.
I'm reminded of the NYT, when, as an occasional reader, day after day I was in awe as I read the personal stories of the victims of the 9/11 WTC outrage. I told myself, newspapers don't get any better than this! Little did I know how right I was, only for much different reasons, as the NYT and LAT can't get any worse... can they?
" I also recommend pleasant."
Now Cathy you know that's going to be a tough sell here!
:-)
peace
You can "reccomend" pleasant all you want to, dear.
SO he was a savvy enough guy to hack into another reporter's email (or guess the password--so easy if you know the dog's name) but he didn't get the memo on ISPs?
A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance - Proverbs 15v13
Hiltzik's response, while inadequate, was at least more honest than Michael Fumento, who I caught using a sockpuppet,
and responded with three posts on his blog and a whole pile of comments
on other blogs. He called me a liar, claimed that I was insane and falsely accused me of using sock puppets myself. What he didn't do was deny that Tracy Spenser was his sock puppet. Nor would he admit it.
" What he didn't do was deny that Tracy Spenser was his sock puppet. Nor would he admit it."
Former 80's pop stars have to take what work they can get, and if Fumento is willing to let her share his place, then it's a win-win for both of them.
Hiltzik's dishonesty across the board (in his LA Times column, etc.) should render him unemployable in any industry with a semblance of an honor code. I have no doubt that he will be reinstated shortly.
"You can "reccomend" pleasant all you want to, dear."
Yes, and can try "being" pleasant.
I won't hold my breath.
"Pleasant" doesn't feed the admiral's cat.
Kenneth from Alabama is truly a brilliant man, but the nod for sheer masculine pulchritude must certainly go to Webster. I mean, can't we get an amen on that?
Amen!
Hey, David - finally saw Mysterious Skin last night. Good performances all around - but man, what a terribly sad and disturbing story. That film makes Blue Velvet and Deliverance look like pre - school by comparison.
It also makes me want to pass a law that either mandates the elimination or incarceration (for their natural lifetimes) for all pedophiles.
Can't believe that's the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun, either.
...and now, back to our original subject matter - the trolls at the LAT still don't seem to be getting the point here:
http://patterico.com/2006/04/21/...ll-never-guess/
The question is: who among you is Cathy's sockpuppet. I vote for odysseus, and note how well Cathy takes on a masculine persona.
"You can "reccomend" pleasant all you want to, dear."
OK, dear, then how about smart?
Meanwhile, David, this post isn't actually about you. Tim Lambert, Thanks for that fascinating info about Michael Fumento's sock puppets. Amazing that he actually had the gall to blame (presumably) his wife: i.e., he's not a "dirty dog" just because someone in his household felt moved to defend him pseudonymously.
In light of Fumento soliciting that money from Monsanto, it certainly underlines the point that journalists who practice sock puppetry probably have basic problems with integrity. This is looking less and less good for Hiltzik.
Enough with the sockpuppets. Let's raise the bar to Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd.
Fumento did x and y. Hiltzik did x. Therefore...
You know, Cathy, we can all see that you're positively giddy with delight over the troubles of an LAT staffer, but you might find some benefits to staying inside the bounds of rationality as the thing unfolds.
Times reports that they've hired an expert in the field to supervise the investigation.
Ben Domenech.
(With input from advisors Michelle Malkin and Ramesh Ponnuru.)
"Hey, David - finally saw Mysterious Skin last night. Good performances all around - but man, what a terribly sad and disturbing story. That film makes Blue Velvet and Deliverance look like pre - school by comparison."
That was Gregg's intention.
"It also makes me want to pass a law that either mandates the elimination or incarceration (for their natural lifetimes) for all pedophiles. "
Sounds like a plan!
"Can't believe that's the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun, either."
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is DA BOMB!
"Meanwhile, David, this post isn't actually about you. "
Since Kukla and Ollie are decorating it of course it's about me!
Why do you think I'm calling my memoir Raised By Hand Puppets ?
"I also wrote that he’s such a knee-jerk case he actually thinks the Left only criticizes newspapers for not doing their job well enough; the Right, he insists, complain when papers are trying to do their job at all."
"the Right, he insists, complain..."
"the Right ... complain ..."
Even with Fox at 33 percent, Cathy dearest, the Right to which you refer is a plurality. Next time, please blog "the Right complains..." After all, the Right, even at 33 percent per Fox, is more than a single entity.
..."but you might find some benefits to staying inside the bounds of rationality as the thing unfolds."
Perhaps, but since the LAT's other staffers apparently haven't read the memo yet, Cathy's "giddy joy" will no doubt continue unabated.
Hmmm, that almost sounds like a new dish they're serving in Chinatown.
"Can't believe that's the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun, either."
Check this out.
Yeah, heard about that film - thanks for the trailer, and good luck with your own film's (Blowing Smoke) DVD sales!
(gratuitous plug)
"Mike K.'s obscene rejoinder to my comment says a lot -- about Mike K."
Tim, after your crying jag I decided I would hang around other blogs for a while. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
I gotta get me a couple of sock puppets. It's a slow blogging day....
New career opportunity for Luke Ford.
Tim Rutten's column
on media critics shows that tone-deafness to criticism at the LAT doesn't stop with Hiltzik.
Since the heyday of Tim "Skidmark" Brown the sockpuppet has gone drastically downhill. Once a mark of screeching paranoia it has degenerated into mere self abuse. With the assistance of such as Michael Hiltzik the sockpuppet is expected to expire in the very near future. There will be a memorial at alt.usenet.kooks as soon as they can find enough people who actually give a rat's ass.
Crying jag, Mike K.? No, I simply suggested a reason why you would want to keep your remarks within the bounds of decent usage.
Steve Smith wrote, "The point is not whether Hiltzik's opinion is popular; no one gets brownie points simply for making a statement that a lot of people agree with. It's whether he's making a good point."
Oh, please. The agree-ers don't get debate points. The agreed-with does. That's why Hitzlik did it.
He used a sock to agree with himself. Ergo, he himself didn't think his original point was good enough and dishonestly tried to fake popular support. We're back to stuffing the ballot box.
"Since there's no victim, I don't see why the Times suspended him."
There is a victim: the Times. A paper's reputation depends on the honesty of its reporters. The already damaged reputation of papers in general does not need Hitzlick's shenanigans.
"As far as his own site is concerned, well, frankly, I would have been more impressed if his dopples had been making contrary points. That would have shown him willing to generate a debate, even on slow days."
You can't be serious. He could have raised both pro and con points in one post, and then said "What do you folks think?" Instead, what you suggest is not just generating a debate, it would be *manufacturing* one. It would also make his site seem more popular than it actually was. Yet again "stuffing the ballot box". Gee, that analogy sure has turned out to be useful. Of course, Democrats know all about the actuality and generally don't seem to care about it when *they* do it, as I well know from living in Chicago.
Fumento did x and y. Hiltzik did x. Therefore...
You know, Cathy, we can all see that you're positively giddy with delight over the troubles of an LAT staffer...
Actually, Tim, I don't think I'm any more "giddy" about Hiltzik's travails than I was about Fumento's, except that I always enjoy a good media scandal wherever it occurs, especially if it involves pompous blowhards, and appreciate the chance to consider the issues it raises.
If you think I've been particularly hard on Hiltzik (Fumento and his supporters probably wouldn't agree), this says more about your biases than it does about mine.
"Pleasant" doesn't feed the admiral's cat.
Uh, yeah. Right. Whatever.
"The question is: who among you is Cathy's sockpuppet. I vote for odysseus, and note how well Cathy takes on a masculine persona."
Except that we've been photographed together. I suspect David E. He's so utterly unconvincing in his arguments that his only possible value would be to present a totally corrupted antipode which makes Cathy's position seem that much more rational.
"You know, Cathy, we can all see that you're positively giddy with delight over the troubles of an LAT staffer, but you might find some benefits to staying inside the bounds of rationality as the thing unfolds."
What's irrational about pointing out that Hiltzik's integrity is clearly questionable? He's been caught hacking a colleague's e-mail (BTW, has he ever expressed an opinion on the NSA wiretaps?) and puffing himself up with a false internet persona. The latter is pathetic, the former is a felony.
"There is a victim: the Times. A paper's reputation depends on the honesty of its reporters. The already damaged reputation of papers in general does not need Hitzlick's shenanigans."
No, the victim is anyone who's ever relied on the LA Times for accuracy. Like Jayson Blair at the NYT, this demonstrates a serious problem of leadership and management. Why keep a guy who breaks into the private correspondence of another employee? Most corporations would can you for that (and the army would throw the UCMJ at me if I did it). The ethics of the company that kept him on are just as questionable as Hiltzik's.
"Since Kukla and Ollie are decorating it of course it's about me!
Why do you think I'm calling my memoir Raised By Hand Puppets ?"
Beats me. Given your manners, I assumed that you were raised by wolves.
Rabid wolves, mind you.
"Actually, Tim, I don't think I'm any more "giddy" about Hiltzik's travails than I was about Fumento's, except that I always enjoy a good media scandal wherever it occurs, especially if it involves pompous blowhards, and appreciate the chance to consider the issues it raises."
It took a while for me to come around on Fumento, but his getting wounded in Iraq gives him a certain amount of credibility with me. Still, if he's done the sock puppet thing, then he's really blown a lot of that. In that regard, I consider him more tragic than anything else. Hiltzik just strikes me as an arrogant snot who feels the need to puff himself up in the eyes of other commenters. Rather pathetic, especially when you consider that he's got a bully pulpit that most of them could only envy. After almost a year and a half of blogging, I just hit my 50,000th reader. His LAT blog probably gets that many hits in a day. That someone with that much exposure feels the need to pat himself on the back while pretending that it's someone else doing it is comical, but even if your hand is in a sock puppet, stroking yourself is still masturbatory.
It's very simple, Cathy. You haven't pointed to any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hiltzik other than his pseudonymous posting. You suggest, through innuendo but without facts, that he might be corrupt like Fumento. Your reasoning is that they both have created fake identities for internet posting. That's very poor reasoning, no matter what my biases are or aren't.
Once again ody drags in the UCMJ as a somehow ethically superior way to organize humanity.
I spent two years of my life subject to the thing and although I managed to avoid running afoul of it, I found the experience pretty degrading. Being subject to the whims of bullies, blowhards and incompetents is not an uplifting experience.
Judging from recent events, one important effect is to restrain truthtelling until after retirement.
Maybe organizing society on a military basis is not such a good idea after all.
Kukla, Fran and Ollie, good choice, though I think that true kings of polite would have to include Captain Kangaroo and Sherrif John.
Sorry, Kings of Pleasant and its Sheriff John not sherrif.
..."other than his pseudonymous posting."
It should be noted that his superiors are now looking in to see what else the fab journalist may have been fabricating. That does not suggest a lot of credibility for his past actions, wouldn't you agree?
"It took a while for me to come around on Fumento, but his getting wounded in Iraq gives him a certain amount of credibility with me."
Ody,
Just in the interest of accuracy, Fumento did not get "wounded" in Iraq. He fell ill. Why being struck down by an illness would give him crediblity with you is hard to understand. But if that's the way you judge reporters in Iraq covering the war, I hope you apply it across the board.
Here's the story.
(And here's the link, if my html didn't work --
http://www.fumento.com/military/
...frontlines.html
"Fumento said he had been in Iraq for two weeks when he fell victim to what he calls a "hostile environment," not "hostile fire."
"He said he suffers from diverticulitis, a condition that requires considerable rest and lots of water to hold in check. But he said it was so hot in Iraq he found it impossible to stay hydrated and that he was working long hours with the Marines. Fumento said he went to the medical tent for assistance after receiving stabbing pains in his side and quickly found himself "cut open like a fish and having my intestines cut out."
Ultimately, he underwent a colostomy and was flown to a hospital in Germany. From there, he made his way back to the U.S., where he has continued his recovery."
"Hiltzik just strikes me as an arrogant snot who feels the need to puff himself up in the eyes of other commenters. Rather pathetic, especially when you consider that he's got a bully pulpit that most of them could only envy."
As one observer said, Hiltzik's actions are like those of a lonely child who invents an imaginary friend. You would think at at least Hiltzik's blog friend TBoggs would have chimed in with support.
"After almost a year and a half of blogging, I just hit my 50,000th reader."
Congratualtions!
"His LAT blog probably gets that many hits in a day."
I wouldn't be too sure. That information isn't available, but it appears the blog is less than 1 percent of traffic -- because it is lumped into the "other" category in analyzing the LAT's Web traffic.
I don't have the link to the debunking at hand, but will post it when I find it.
Of course, Hiltzik's blog traffic could be way up now. People like to look at train wrecks . . .
I think Hiltzik's blog gets no more than a couple thousand readers a day, probably more like a few hundred. The readerships of newspaper blogs is surprisingly low. But his column is in a paper with almost a million readers, so yes, he does (so far) have a bully pulpit -- and therefore an obligation to behave honestly and responsibly.
But his column is in a paper with almost a million readers, so yes, he does (so far) have a bully pulpit -- and therefore an obligation to behave honestly and responsibly.
No argument there -- you're absolutely right.
Enjoyed the confinuing education on the ways of health insurance cos. in the LAT this morning. A very enlightening article.
"Ford’s fast-and-loose blogging has also brought him some legal woes. He posted pictures of a woman fornicating with a dog and falsely identified the puppy lover as former Playboy model Christi Lake. Ford’s insurance company settled with Lake for a hefty sum, and Ford agreed never to write about her again."
"It's very simple, Cathy. You haven't pointed to any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hiltzik other than his pseudonymous posting. You suggest, through innuendo but without facts, that he might be corrupt like Fumento. Your reasoning is that they both have created fake identities for internet posting. That's very poor reasoning, no matter what my biases are or aren't."
I don't see the failure of reasoning here. Both created false personas to support their arguments. But Hiltzik has indulged in corrupt behavior, but you seem to have missed this part of Cathy's entry:
"As I noted in a January column here, Hiltzik lost his Times position as Moscow correspondent a dozen years ago, after he was discovered hacking into co-workers’ e-mail. That’s what brought him to the paper’s business section."
I consider that corrupt. Don't you?
"Once again ody drags in the UCMJ as a somehow ethically superior way to organize humanity."
I don't consider it necessarily ethically superior. It is, however, a more stringent set of rules than civilians have to deal with, as demonstrated by a discussion with a civil servant who wanted to know why our pay scale was higher than his. I told him that I'd be happy to have him collect the same pay that I did if he was willing to come under the same rules of UCMJ that governed me. The conversation ended rather quickly.
"Being subject to the whims of bullies, blowhards and incompetents is not an uplifting experience."
So does that mean that you're not going to "knock [me] on [my] ass"? Or is subjecting others to your bullying and blowharded behavior supposed to uplift us (I'll suspend judgement on your competence)?
"Judging from recent events, one important effect is to restrain truthtelling until after retirement."
That's one interpretation, I tend to think that, like Marshall Petain, the generals are showing that it's easier to get away with disgracing your uniform when you're no longer wearing it.
"Maybe organizing society on a military basis is not such a good idea after all."
Never said that it was. The people who insist that we live that way, that we equalize all pay, have all people live in common areas with all property controlled by the state, stifle public dissent and be ineligible for monetary reward beyond our predetermined needs are Marxists. Those of us who chose to live in the military do so in order to assure that the rest of the world doesn't have to.
"Just in the interest of accuracy, Fumento did not get "wounded" in Iraq. He fell ill. Why being struck down by an illness would give him crediblity with you is hard to understand. But if that's the way you judge reporters in Iraq covering the war, I hope you apply it across the board."
My understanding is that he was wounded, at least according to him. In a private e-mail, he told me that he'd lost part of his leg.
"Ford’s fast-and-loose blogging has also brought him some legal woes. He posted pictures of a woman fornicating with a dog and falsely identified the puppy lover as former Playboy model Christi Lake. Ford’s insurance company settled with Lake for a hefty sum, and Ford agreed never to write about her again."
Did the dog reach a separate settlement?
Hi Ody,
"My understanding is that he was wounded, at least according to him. In a private e-mail, he told me that he'd lost part of his leg."
I am only going by what I've read, including a story Fumento placed on his own Web site. Could he have been wounded in a separate incident?
Did Fumento write anywhere else about being wounded? Details about time and place would be welcome.
Maybe organizing society on a military basis is not such a good idea after all.
And the nonsensical Euro-socialism embraced by all the fools in a country like France (and a good percentage of people in California) certainly isn't a good idea too ("oh, waaaa, some mean-hearted politicians want employers to be allowed to terminate employees----and only younger workers at that----within 2 years! Waaaa!")
From my eyes, a big enough shadow was cast over Michael Fumento when he dealt with issues raised against him, in spite of his at least having an overall philosophy I can relate to. Michael Hiltzik, by comparison, favors an ideology I certainly don't care for, and moreover his behavior with "sock puppets" and private email seems far more juvenile (Hi, Nikki Finke!) and flaky, if not more unethical or outright illegal, than what I associate with the maneuverings of Fumento.
"I am only going by what I've read, including a story Fumento placed on his own Web site. Could he have been wounded in a separate incident?
Did Fumento write anywhere else about being wounded? Details about time and place would be welcome."
I just checked his site and didn't find anything on it. I wish that I still had the e-mail, but it was on the computer that I had in theater, and it's been re-imaged by our G6 and my backed up PST file was corrupted, so I lost a lot of data coming back. It's entirely possible that my recollection on this is faulty, but I really could have sworn that the word used was "wounded" and not "injured" or "sick".
ody,
Intercepting the private e-mail of others is certainly wrong. Is it corrupt? There's no evidence that this long-ago incident involved any motivation related to financial gain.
As Cathy herself noted recently, extreme inquisitiveness is more often an asset than a liability among professional reporters.
Using pseudonyms on his own blog was deceptive and a very poor way to treat his readers. Does it discredit everything he's written? Hardly. Does it suggest he's somehow on the take? I don't see how.
As you've noticed, I don't respond well to bullying. If you want to characterize my posts as bullying, I can't stop you. This is Cathy's site and I'm not going to take the matter further here.
I was glad to read that surgery won't be necessary and hope that all things orthopaedic continue to go as well as possible.
Tim,
Corrupt or not, Hiltzik's intercepting others' private e-mail was undeniably unethical on several levels. Patterico's comment thread referenced a book that describes his offense in some detail:
http://tinyurl.com/j2ypj
"In 1993, Michael Hiltzik, a highly regarded foreign correspondent in the Moscow bureau of the Los Angeles Times, was caught reading his coworkers’ email. His colleagues became suspicious when system records showed that someone had logged in to check their email at times when they knew they hadn’t been near the computer. So they set up a sting operation. They planted false information in messages from another one of the paper’s foreign bureaus. Hiltzik read the notes and later asked colleagues about the false information. Bingo! As a disciplinary measure, he was immediately reassigned to another position at the paper’s Los Angeles bureau."
As a card-carrying MSM member, I sure wouldn't want Hiltzik in my office.
"Intercepting the private e-mail of others is certainly wrong. Is it corrupt? There's no evidence that this long-ago incident involved any motivation related to financial gain. "
Nor would it have to in order to be corrupt. If he was doing it for voyeuristic thrills or professional infighting or even romantic obsession, he's still a lowlife.
"Using pseudonyms on his own blog was deceptive and a very poor way to treat his readers. Does it discredit everything he's written? Hardly. Does it suggest he's somehow on the take? I don't see how."
I was under the impression that he did it on other blogs as well, hence the trapping of his IP addresses. Cheating to win in any competition is corrupt, and the competition of ideas is no different. Hiltzik's creating a fake groundswell of support through fraud is infantile. I wouldn't want him on my side of a debate, and I wouldn't be allowed to have him. Our honor code says that we can't lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do, and Hiltzik loses on two out of three.
"If you want to characterize my posts as bullying, I can't stop you. This is Cathy's site and I'm not going to take the matter further here."
Well, it's hard to take a threat of physical assault as not bullying, but hey, what do I know?
Thanks for the kind words. Personally, I'd have preferred the surgery if it meant that I'd be able to go back to the same physical routine, but that's not likely either.
"Intercepting the private e-mail of others is certainly wrong. Is it corrupt?"
Tim, have you actually worked in an office? Every place that I've worked at has had strict privacy rules that, once violated, are grounds for immediate dismissal. You usually have to sign a document on your first day, attesting to your understanding of this policy. This of course includes e - mail (at least since 1995), and phone conversations. Once the offender is discovered, he/she is dismissed - there is no debate or discussion about the matter.
Public corporations risk the threat of lawsuits if they do not take immediate actions on this front, as well as a poisonous workplace atmosphere that will result if the offender is let off the hook.
It's a sleazy, unethical and ultimately ruinous action for anyone at most companies.
I don't know Michael. I've never met, spoken or had any professional interaction with him. His reputation from people who have had dealings with him is that of a smart, tough reporter who digs hard, but is usually fair.
I've read his column since its inception because my job has a California business focus. He seems to be a pretty sharp analyst and seems to have some pretty broad frames of reference to draw on.
His columns analyzing the grocery stike here in S. Calif. not too long ago impressed me particularly (and the topic was of very high interest at home, since my wife was a striking UFCW member). Hiltzik was tough on both the union and the supermarket and his columns were very informative. We learned more from the LAT than from either the company or the union.
So, as an avid reader of business news in the LAT, I would hate to see him go. This recent episode is disappointing, but I disagree with those who say it discredits the rest of his work. I think a judgment like that inflates the significance of this latest brouhaha far more than the known facts warrant.
OK, I've said my piece. I'll shut up now
Public corporations risk the threat of lawsuits if they do not take immediate actions on this front...
This is an area of evolving law since corporations are liable for various things often revealed in e-mail archives. Most businesses have both privacy rules and statements that e-mail and internet access through/on their servers can be inspected for inappropriate activity.
..."can be inspected for inappropriate activity."
Yes, that was also true at my past jobs. However, unwarranted eavesdroping of this particular nature would have been against their privacy rules.
From today's Washington Post.
Hiltzik also got into trouble in 1993, when the Times recalled him from the paper's Moscow bureau after he was caught hacking into colleagues' e-mail. He was exposed through an internal sting operation when he asked about phony messages that had been sent to other staffers in the bureau.
"His answer was that he was nosy and curious," says Carey Goldberg, a former colleague in the Moscow bureau who now works for the Boston Globe. "We were extremely upset. It was an incredible invasion of privacy. There were a lot of personal e-mails in there."
Seipp says Hiltzik has apparently been taking potshots at her because she criticized him at the time of the 13-year-old incident. While Hiltzik is "a very smart reporter and writer," Seipp says, his behavior "suggests that this guy has a history of snooping around and is dishonest and doing things he shouldn't be doing. It's also self-destructive."
I wonder what Chaim Amalek thinks about all this.
wow power level,power leveling,wow gold for sale,buy cheap wow gold.
Welcome to our wow Gold and store. We are wow power leveling specilized, professional and reliable website for selling and service. By the wow powerleveling same token,we offer the best WoW service for our long-term and loyal customers You will find the benefits and wow gold value we created different from other sites. As to most people
Thank you, beautiful article。Nike nike shoes, jordan shoes, sports shoes, china nike, putian shoeswholesale NBA jersey
cheap NBA jerseyNike nike shoes, jordan shoes, sports shoes,
Commenting by HaloScan
