Hiltzik has Masters in Journalism from Columbia as well as a Pultizer.
CBC Arts: Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist’s blog suspended — All this proves to me is that the LA Times made sure that this wasn’t a real blog by editing it and running it through their mill. He was busted for posting on his blog and elsewhere using pseudonyms.
I’m not saying this guy writing under various pseudonyms was a good thing, but if it was actually his blog then he had every right to express himself through an alto-ego, or alter-a-hole as the case may be. This is an example of what I talked about in my 2003 essay Co-Opting the Future cited here. I now have some of the proof I was looking for regarding these so-called blogs you now find at newspapers and magazines.
Is commenting in your own blog under a different name a form of corruption or a form of blogging? I do know one thing, that many people commenting on blogs often use a variety of names. Unbeknownst to people who read blogs but do not run blogs a careful IP log is maintained and it’s easy to see who does this. Does it matter? Not usually. But if you want to ban someone for doing this it’s the blogger who does the firing, not the bloggers boss in some office. Ironically Michael Hiltzik got his Pulitzer covering corruption.
A second irony was Hiltzik’s post titled “On “Anonymity in Blogland.” So clearly he was thinking about rationalizing the possibilities.
Hiltzik was actually outed by another blogger, local Assistent DA Patrick Frey who blogs under the name Patterico (Patrick “RICO” – get it?). Frey examined IP addresses to discover that a commenter named Mikekoshi was also Hiltzik. He then saw Hiltzik using this same fake name on his own site. Frey blew the public whistle on Hiltzik. The spineless Times immediately suspended Hiltzik.
The Frey post is quite amusing and is linked here. (Note how none of the big media outlets will link to this: the source of the controversy. Does anyone find that in itself peculiar?)
Hiltzik, like many older newsmen, have no clue about these mechanisms in these programs and should have known better and run his posts through anonymizers if he wanted to pull these stunts. People need to learn how to use computers! Geez.
The Times said he was suspended for violating Times ethics policies. All big newspapers have a book of ethics that is mostly about protecting the interests of the newspaper. They are particularly sensitive to being embarrassed.
The specific complaint against the guy has to do with making your identity clear if you are an LA Times reporter. This is to prevent writers, when reporting, from claiming they are someone else such as an IRS agent — just to get a quote. That’s the real reason for the rule. This blog-related usage of the rule is actually a chickenshit interpretation and instead of suspending the blog someone should have made him explain himself on his own blog and let the public decide what was going on. Either that or taken him aside and told him to stop it. But no, someone made a federal case out of it rather than find some way to stick up for the guy. A reprimand would have been sufficient if you needed to get tough. It’s a blog for cripes-sake!
Oh wait. I forgot. It’s not really a blog is it?
I believe that this episode will be looked at by newsmen all over the country and the “blog in the newspaper” idea will be re-thought.
The Los Angeles Times has suspended the blog of a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who posed as a reader to defend his own column and attack his conservative critics.
“[Michael] Hiltzik admitted … that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own,” said the Times in a statement. “That is a violation of The Times ethics guidelines.”
The newspaper said Friday that it is still investigating the incident and could take further action.
But what was the content he was posting…
If it was his own ideals, WHO cares?
Critics on sociaty?? WHO cares?\
BS on how things are run?? I’d like to read..
The eneptitude of the work environment?? WHO CARES??
Ha.
This is a clear indication of the ethical vacuum that pervades the MSM … ‘Mainstream Media,” which has abdicated its constitutional role as an eye on society and government and has become Celebrity Justice wrapped in the flag of the First Amendment … small wonder that when the public is polled, their respect for journalists ranks somewhere between used-car salemen and members of Congress.
“The specific complaint against the guy has to do with making your identity clear if you are an LA Times reporter. This is to prevent writers, when reporting, from claiming they are someone else such as an IRS agent — just to get a quote. That’s the real reason for the rule. This blog-related usage of the rule is actually a chickenshit interpretation and instead of suspending the blog someone should have made him explain himself on his own blog and let the public decide what was going on. Either that or taken him aside and told him to stop it. But no, someone made a federal case out of it rather than find some way to stick up for the guy. A reprimand would have been sufficient if you needed to get tough. It’s a blog for cripes-sake!”
I agree with almost all of this. But you’re missing the point of why bloggers like me think what Hiltzik did is sleazy. We don’t care if he uses a pseudonym. What we don’t like is that he and his pseudonyms praised and defended each other, as if they were different people. He treated his pseudonyms as virtual “sock puppets.” It’s not the pseudonyms, it’s the sock-puppetry. More on this here:
CLICK here for the sock puppet concept.
I would appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this, because the LAT complaint against Hiltzik is nonsense. But that doesn’t mean there’s not a valid complaint against him. There is. It’s not a firing offense — it’s just a highly mockable one.
Franklin used Silence Dogood and many other pseudonyms for several reasons. He didn’t want to end up in the stocks or facing the Royal Governor. He also wanted to increase circulation, while keeping his public persona out of the fray. Many reasons for nom de plumes. This guy may have signed a exclusivity contract.
Patterico…AH, I have to toally agree with you…but only to the point of mockery as you suggest. I mean, the way I see it, if you can’t get a back-and-forth debate by presenting your position, then faking a debate is indeed sleazy.
This is partly the result of a boring blog. Many of the so-called blogs you find in newspapers are very milktoast with their content. In this regard it’s no surprise that Hiltzik is a good reporter and perhaps overly trained at J-school. He wondered why this alone didn’t suffice to generate interest on the blog. It didn’t. I honestly believe that a lot of today’s new reporters would be shocked to find out that virtually nobody reads them. With a blog you find out if anyone is interest ed real FAST. Max Headroom style.
This same crap was being said at the end of Clintons era. Every bit of it from how he thought he was above the law to how he was going to remove the 22nd amendmant. I swear some of this crap being written has been written before and they just took Clinton’s name out and put Bush’s in.
Pedro, this can happen and sometimes can happen by accident if you are in the middle of a spam storm, for instance. We personally do not do it and all of the moderators strictly follow the guidelines for comments posted here. Within the guidelines there are plenty of ways tthe comment will get erased, but it doesn’t happen often. Personally I like comments that disagree with the posts. Opens debate. Debate is good.
So am i missing a point, he signed a contract (or at least knew what was expected through the ethics expectations of his employer) saying if you give me money I won’t do this, then he does it and expects to be paid none the less.
How is that right?
If his site required a fictional figure to stir up debate then shut ‘er down. It wasn’t worth the electrons.
While blogs have opened up a lot of new opportunities, not even a tiny fraction of one percent have any relevance to anyone outside the blogger’s family and very close friends. The sooner bloggers realize that the sooner they will come back to reality.
JIm, yes…but it misses my point. The point is that these blogs — maybe because of these deals you outline — are hardly blogs by any sense of the word.
It’s just a way to get more work out of a writer and not pay any more money.