Frankly... The LA Times are a bunch of idiots. Thats my considered opinion. Now for my unconsidered opinion...
Let me see if understand the Times' argument: "making statements under a pseudonym is deception." I always forget that the Media doesn't tolerate deception... Yeah... Right.
I'm sure that Nixon would have loved this rule.
It is lunacy to suspend one of a paper's prize-winning writers because he spoke outside of the paper, using a different voice. (If he had been representing himself as a "silent witness" of the paper's doings and talking about the paper's work or working for a competitor, the situation would be very different.) Even the govt. doesn't treat her employees like this.
As it is, the Times are a bunch of idiots... but I already said that.
Just a clarification. Hiltzick (the LA Times) didn't get in trouble merely for blogging using a pseudonym. The problem was he was using his own name, and then using a pseudonym in comment boxes to say nice things about himself. In other words, he was pretending to be different people in order to give the imp[ression that more peopple supported his arguments than did. That's pretty sleazy. Is it is a firing offense? I am not sure, but he deserved some sort of reprimnd.
Read Patterico to learn more about the story.
The commenter above is a genius, and truly worth listening to.
Oh, one other thought. I do find it highly amusing that these papers should be so concerned about "ethics" when they can't even bother to accurately report the story. From merely reading the articles you would think Hiltzick got in trouble solely from blogging under a pseudonymn, when in fact - as I sad above - it's a lot more complicated.
Ahhh. Truth and the MSM - two things that never seem to go hand in hand.
"... I believe I have posted comments on other blogs under my real name, so I want to know if I have done something wrong."
I don't think so. The L.A. Times case aside, if a blog allows anonymous comments, then no one is obliged to provide their real name.
Having read Patterico's review of the situation (and apparently detailed fact-finding -- imagine if the MSM actually did research like that, we might actually get real news), it would seem that Paul has nailed the reason for the contrasting treatment.
As for you, MQAblog:
[I]f a blog allows anonymous comments, then no one is obliged to provide their real name.
Being Catholic, I would like to remind everyone that there is something called the sin of omission, which essentially means you can still commit a sin by not doing something or failing to do something just as easily as you can commit a sin by affirmatively doing something. Mr. Hiltzik's use of a pseudonym for third-party-rehabilitation and bolstering purposes on his own blog and elsewhere is problematic for the same reason: while there is nothing legally wrong with what Hiltzik did, it is nevertheless dishonest, and falsely skews the debates in which he takes part.
Besides, MQAblog, your comment is the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Guns are legal; therefore, anyone can do whatever they want with guns." That statement is obviously false, and you would probably be the first to point out its falsity.
Pseudonymns are fine - even as one who blogs using a real name, it's completely understandable why some people feel that they need to hide their identity. And I'd probably use a pseudonym if I were clever enough to come up with a good one.
Two things, though. I do think that a blogger ought to stick with one name - be it their real one or a pseudonym - when they blog or post comments on blogs. I know that Steven Dillard also posts as Feddie, but that's a little different. At first he was trying to remain anonymous, and then he "came out," so to speak, but he still uses both names - but people recognize both as him.
It does annoy me slightly when people just blog as anonymous. JUst come up with something, even if it's not clever. It just lets the reader idenitfy who's speaking, and it sort of allows for some consistency.
But I don't think it's a horrible ethical breach to use multiple names or to remain anonymous - that's simply something I consider to be blogging etiquette. The Hiltzick thing, as I have already said, is different in that he's using several names all on the same blog just to give the appearance of greater support. That is clearly a more unethical action.
Commenting by HaloScan
