Hiltzik Suspended
The L.A. Times has suspended Pulitzer-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik without pay, and discontinued both his column and his weblog, in response to the news that Hiltzik used psuedonyms on his blog and elsewhere to comment on Times-related matters, including his own work. From the editor's note:
Hiltzik did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web. But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times' ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world.
Over the past few days, some analysts have used this episode to portray the Web as a new frontier for newspapers, saying that it raises fresh and compelling ethical questions. Times editors don't see it that way. The Web makes it easier to conceal one's identity, and the tone of exchanges is often harsh. But the Web doesn't change the rules for Times journalists.
Whole thing here; related material at L.A. Observed. Hiltzik will be "reassigned" after the suspension. The investigation was triggered by some tech sleuthing by serial Hiltzik/Times antagonist Patrick "Patterico" Frey, who drew an initially dismissive response from Hiltzik.
Frey is conflicted about the result:
Obviously, the decision was the editors’ to make, and they have made it. I will have to reflect on this. I may post further thoughts over the weekend.
Regardless of whether this was the right move, I take no joy in the result, and I encourage readers to show class and restraint in their comments.
L.A. Voice's Mack Reed is not shedding any tears:
The memo from Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Doug Frantz puts it pretty well, but almost misses Hiltzik's crime against authorial morality in pinpointing the one against editorial policy [...]
[H]e stumbled by manufacturing two of his greatest fans, posing as them on his own blog and others, and trying to mislead the public as to his own popularity - both the height of vanity and the depth of stupidity for a blogger. It was only a matter of time before someone exposed him. If you proclaim yourself a truth-teller and analyst of fact, you can't get away with lying for long in this venue.
Hugh Hewitt pours scorn on the whole enterprise:
Isn't it at least a little ironic that the Times releases this information on a Friday afternoon, traditional burial ground of bad news-- in an obvious effort to have the story pass with as little attention as possible? So much for transparency.
Michael Hiltzik is just one of hundreds of examples of ideologicially blinkered agenda journalists at the Times. He just got caught. [...]
The Times concludes "an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting."
[T]he culture at the Times that produced him quite obviously stays the same.
Lefty blogger and bankruptcy lawyer Steve Smith, on the other hand, thinks the suspension was a terrible mistake:
Perhaps demonstrating, once and for all, that the LA Times doesn't get the internet or the blogosphere [....] Being a monopoly allows you to do stuff like that.
Matt,
Fact is, we are not talking about just "sock puppetry" but about a mindset that is prevelent at the times. I spoke with a Reader's Rep at the times for over a few months and it was never addressed by him until I brought up the words "Sue" and "LA Times." Most writers on your paper have no respect for the two party system (Al Martinez, Michael Hiltzik, Tim Rutten, Robert Scheer -- yes his influence is still felt there. I've even read some news articles attacking the GOP when it made no sense (Calender and Sports). When Hiltzik responded to Pattrico, all he did was call him names rather then engage in discussion. That occurs when someone is in an echo chamber. Califrnia Democrats run a one-party state here and there is corruption high up in California and LA county Republicans, yet there is no story because no writer at the times are Republicans. That is the mote in your eye. Discuss that issue in your blog (and in the newspaper)and this will be a learning experience.
Posted by: JSF | May 03, 2006 at 08:10 AM
Over at his place this morning, Patterico addressed a question to me personally (full disclosure, me and “other lefties) and thus stirred me somewhat from my fatique with L'affaire Hiltzik. As I pontificated over at Patterico's site, I'd be more impressed with the moral outrage of his acolytes, if they exhibited even a shred of integrity by fulminating over any one of the Bush Administrations many exercises in "sock puppetry" (which in the hands of government of course goes by an uglier name: propaganda), e.g. Jeff Gannon. Armstrong Williams. Medialink Worldwide Inc., etc., etc., etc. Alas, all that falls out of the purview of Patterico & Co., which is, transparently so, to get the LA Times.
I'm going to pass on your invitation to use my real name here. I know that Michelle Malkin's readers used the information she provided them to make death threats against the anti-recruiter students and that right-wingers in general have an insatiable appetite for books that accuse people of my political persuasion of the repulsive charge of treason, a capital offense (and more capital than normal in these times). Like TakeFive, I must cling to my anonymity out of fear of reprisal. And in my case the fear is more immediate, since the poster known as "flap" who revealed himself as Dr. Gregory Cole, was, I believe, once my dentist. Imagine, if you will, my vulnerability if Dr. Cole knows my true identity and how diametrically opposed we are politically, and with Michael Savage or Hugh Hewitt on the radio gets me again in his chair with his drill in my mouth. Laurence Olivier's voice echoes in my brain: "Is it safe yet? Is it safe yet?"
Posted by: Asinistra | May 02, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Matt, it's encouraging to see civil responses to challenges to the Times' position. I like your approach. Not every blogger is right (or, arguably, even in their right mind) and challenges will arise. Dealing with them respectfully is something that Hiltzik just couldn't do. He was the wrong choice for an early LA Times venture into the blogosphere. Honest discourse and frank discussion of opposing viewpoints will, I hope, become the lingua franca of the "New" Los Angeles Times. I'm hoping that happens--although there's a long way for the Times to go before it gets there.
Posted by: Mike Myers | May 01, 2006 at 01:51 PM
My last comment was directed to the balance the scales guy.
Posted by: Patrick Frey (Patterico) | May 01, 2006 at 01:32 PM
Baquet's discussion of his reasoning behind Hiltzik's punishment was illuminating. Did that explanation, made at the LA Times Festival of Books, ever get into the Times itself?
Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | May 01, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Ah, the guy obsessed with defending the good name of Michel Thomas. Nice to see you.
Posted by: Patrick Frey (Patterico) | May 01, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Matt -
First, thanks for the opportunity at this forum to write. Perhaps this is one of the first steps in the Times' 12-step program back to credibility. A couple of other steps might be a more precise explanation of what Hiltzik did to warrant his suspension (no different than a reporter writing a letter to the editor that praises his own work) and a thorough accounting of the process used to examine his earlier work for any inaccurate reporting.
I've noticed that the comments at Hiltzik's blog have been frozen at 32 for his feeble defense of his actions and 0 for the Editor's Note regarding his suspension. Are those the actual totals or did the Times freeze the comments section. If it did, why?
And, let’s face it - Hiltzik is a product of the liberal culture at the LA Times. It's hard to see anything wrong if the vast majority of your colleagues agree with everything you write. Like so many left-leaning institutions, the Times demands diversity in every regard except one: That of thought. So often it seems, if reporters/editors want a story to be true, it just doesn't undergo as vigorous a scrutiny as other stories might.
The line between the editorial pages and news pages is increasing blurred with the Times among the leaders at this obfuscation. Hiltzik is just the latest example.
I think it's difficult for so much of the legacy media to realize that instead of fighting the oppressors, they have become the oppressors.
William Carpenter
Del Mar, Ca
In the interests of full disclosure - I will return legally return to my birth name of William Hamilton by the end of this month.
Posted by: william carpenter | May 01, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I have yet to read of anyone commenting that this newly announced LAT policy prohibiting anonymous or pseudonymous posts on web logs could have consequences for other reporters at the LA Times. There is at least one who has routinely made web log posts and submitted book reviews under phony names, commenting approvingly about his own work, and ridiculing opposing views, for the past couple of years. Ironically, he is a reporter Mr. Frey thinks highly of, unlike Mr. Hiltzik. Once the brouhaha dies down about Mr. Hiltzik, it will be interesting to see if the policy is enforced with equal rigor toward this reporter, and other reporters at the paper who may acted similarly.
Posted by: balance_the_scales | May 01, 2006 at 09:55 AM
LAO's description of the Baquet appearance at the Festival of Books sated any angry need for justice in the Hiltzik controversy. Hiltzik's not just embarassed; the earning power of his opinion has been substantially diminished. The MSM employer has been forced think clearly and publicly about how truth gets written and who writes it, and seems to have come down on the good side of things. What else does anyone want out of this?
Matt, it's great to see you giving afternoons to this, but it always seemed like comment-nannying was your least favorite part of bloggery. Those of us who love these little slapfasts worry that either the spam or the stupidity will soon wear you down.
Posted by: Mark Cridland | May 01, 2006 at 09:30 AM
He deserved to be fired.
Posted by: John Thomas | May 01, 2006 at 05:12 AM
>>>Allowing a halfwitted far right idiot like Patrick Frey to bamboozle the LA Times shows how far you have fallen now that you've become the AAA farm club for Chicago's best litter-box liner/cage-bottom cover/toilet-paper substitute.
Hiltzik, is that you?
Posted by: Carlos | April 30, 2006 at 10:38 PM
No one has correctly identified Michael Hiltzik's most culpable act.
No, not the sock-puppetry, though that was bad enough.
Hiltzik's worst journalistic sin was his response AFTER Patterico had exposed him.
Once Patterico had the goods on him, instead of manfully fessing up to the facts Patterico had so thoroughly documented, Hiltzik posted on his Golden State blog a response ("On Anonymity in Blogland") that attempted to blur the issue (a blurring that the LAT and other mainstream media thereafter more or less continued).
That hubris in the face of the truth was what disqualified Hiltzik from any position that would presume to make any claim upon the public trust.
A side note on pseudonyms: I blog under a "nom de blog" for a good and simple reason: In the present divisive political climate, one's political views can often lead to one losing not only friends and lovers, but also jobs and professional business relationships. It seems that there some folks on the left who believe that conservatism is a moral fault only slightly less blameworthy than pederasty. I've lost one job because my conservative views were deemed unacceptable. I'd rather not repeat that experience.
Having learned that lesson at the cost of my livelihood, I now keep my political views to myself in the workplace--or share them only with those I know I can trust. My "nom de blog," Bathus, can easily be pierced by anyone who cares to take a little trouble. But that pseudonym provides at least a thin layer of protection against being exposed as an evil conservative by some snoopy co-worker idly googling my name.
Posted by: Bathus | April 30, 2006 at 08:58 PM
Hiltzik's style is taylor-made for Kos or Huffington. Why the LA Times can't do better is beyond me. If the Moscow e-mail story is true then there's a pattern here which will surely emerge again.
Posted by: Harkin Banks | April 30, 2006 at 08:20 PM
Everyone needs to get a grip and grow up! You know so what a guys bends a little. You don't think most of the Times journalist actually writes the whole, that they fairly give all sides of a particular story. It seems it's like the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: david | April 30, 2006 at 07:49 PM
Michael Hiltzik was re-assigned by the Times a little over 12 years ago when he was discovered hacking into his colleagues'email, while working at the Times' Moscow bureau.
And now he has been discovered to be creating phony third persons to praise his own work, and slander his critics, both on his LA Times blog, as well as other blogs.
WHY does the Times insist upon keeping such an ethically-challenged individual on its payroll ?
We're not talking about "youthful indiscretions" here. Hiltzik is probably closer to 60, than 50.
There's a Freudian aspect to this tragicomedy which I intend to use as a teaching tool in the psychology classes which I teach.
That is that Hiltzik has made a profession of holding business and government to the fire for perceived ethics lapses, yet he will probably be long remembered for as the guy whom sabotaged his own career with his inability to conform to a standard of professional ethics.
Perhaps, his professional career has long been a theapeutic attempt to better understand his own lack of character.
Posted by: Peter Martinez | April 30, 2006 at 07:20 PM
First of all, thanks to the LAT and Matt Welch for opening this issue for discussion.
I join the chorus in being a bit disappointed at this paper for not taking a stand on the intentions of Hiltzik for creating multiple identities. I agree that the anonymity wasn't the problem.
I initially was also inclined to think that the public humiliation was more than enough punishment and no further action needed to be taken. However, the more I though about it, the more I felt betrayed and more than a little puffed up with indignation.
Journalists constantly use phrases such as 'anonymous sources', 'a credible source', 'most people', etc. Usually when called on this, the response is something along the lines of they stand behind it, they have rigorously fact checked, always a reference to the 1st amendment, blah blah blah.
I think there have been enough newspaper scandals to know that they often fall down on the job. So the public has a right to expect more from journalists and a duty to call them on it.
This may look like a pretty insignificant thing on the surface to some, but taken with everything else, it leads me to seriously question the credibility of the media.
Posted by: lunarcave | April 30, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Mike,
I am a small time blogger but I'd like to point out to you that even I am subject to threats:
This same person sent similar threats to many of my blogging friends. Fortunately, he never made it past the threat stage as we notified the appropriate authorities.
Anonymity keeps people and their families safe from wackos like this (there are more than you think) so let them use it when appropriate.
Sean is my real name. That is all anyone need know.
Posted by: SeanS | April 30, 2006 at 05:06 PM
Hiltzik's blog was a big nothing. He rarely got ten comments to his infrequent stories. Most of the comments were negative. His responses to comments were juvenile.
Makes "the" Pulitzer Prize cheap. Well, the prize is named for the father of yellow journalism. Maybe Hiltzik, WaPost, NYTimes are perfect recipients. AhOooGah Dive, Dive...
If you want news, go to the blogs.
Posted by: JoeS | April 30, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Just adding to the discussion about using pseudonyms, can you imagine anyone using their real name to start a comment thus:
"As an ex-Muslim, I..."
There are many valid reasons not to post under your own name.
Posted by: Anon out of fear and to make a point | April 30, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Dafydd ab Hugh -- I apologized to you above.
J. Peden -- There's no such thing as "enough heat."
Kyda -- The point of requesting (not demanding, mind you, but requesting) real names, is not to create a 100% foolproof system to make sure that indeed everyone is using their real names, but rather to simply encourage a better conversation through the magic of transparency. That's it. It's not a rigid rule, it's an encouragement, and I find it odd that anyone would get exercised about it.
Chad -- I'd love to move toward a Slashdot model; I personally think that's the future (and a helluva lot more efficient than having to approve comments). But we're a huge institution for which it's difficult to make radical-ish technological changes, so we're starting with baby steps here in the Opinion Dept.
anon2 -- I'm not "request[ing] that [an] entire group not enter" this site. One way you can tell this, is that you are a member of that group, and not only did you successfully enter the site, but now I'm responding to you. Using real names is a request, not a demand. The only people here required to use their real names are myself and my colleagues.
Dana -- Yes, sorry, I personally do consider first names + links to home pages (particularly those which include real names) more than ample demonstration of transparency.
Posted by: Matt Welch | April 30, 2006 at 10:50 AM
“Now wait just a goldarn minute here! Even though this commenter admitted Hiltzik would be "unlikely" to crawl through someone's window, he's still using me as an example that commenters might reasonably have something real to fear from using their real names....
...Please include me out of this nervous Nellies club.”
OK - turn in your club card at the courtesy desk.
Cathy, I didn’t intend to make you into a victim, I was merely trying to cite a relevant example and this seemed to do the job - even if it was a somewhat weak example at that. I’ve read enough of your stuff to know you’re not fainthearted.
“As someone who's experienced among the very worst of trolls -- not only those verminy Daily Kos readers who for the past few days have been wishing me dead because I'm a Republican, but also my daughter's truly nuts ex-high school teacher who for almost two years has maintainted an angry site about us...”
And that’s my point - it’s so easy today. Technology has provided an order of magnitude more leverage over the poison pen letter. As the sole provider for my family, I’m not willing to risk that some nut job will flood my company’s website with inflammatory comments about me. It’s a small company, with reasonable people, but it wouldn’t take much for them to say “We like you, but...”
So for now, postings to the cacti society will get my real name; political discussions receive a pseudonym.
Lastly, despite my criticism, I have great sympathy for Mr. Hiltzik. I believe I read he has young children and I would not like to see his livelihood threatened by a childish, but somewhat harmless mistake. Those of us that are opinionated know how easy it is to get sucked into the web, and Hiltzik stumbled here. But I recognize the Times needs to maintain the integrity of its brand, and Hiltzik’s transgressions don’t reflect well on the paper.
Posted by: TakeFive | April 30, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Our moderator wrote: "Please use your real names. That's a request, not a demand. TakeFive, JJ, Flap, kcom, Dafydd ab Hugh, stackja -- I'm looking at you! It's my firm belief and experience that the quality of discussion improves immensely when people avoid the cheap courage of pseudonymity when tossing around insults. Would you say whatever it is you want to say about Hiltzik or anyone else if you had to stake your name behind it? That's what I want to know."
Please note that while I signed myself "Dana," the url I gave takes you to my site, which has my full name posted. I don't know if you'd consider that a pseudonym or not.
Normally, on blogs which ask for a name, e-mail address and url, the posted comment has the url embedded under the author's name; I consider that a sufficient link. Since this particular blog operates differently, I'll go ahead and put my last name down as well.
Posted by: Dana R. Pico | April 30, 2006 at 09:30 AM
hiltzik is apparently a fan of sumo wrestling, so i thought i'd liken this situation to a sumo match:
in this corner of the dohyo, the pissant but pumped up little wrestler patterico, facing the mighty mikekoshi, marquee wrestler for the most powerful newspaper in the west. after the ceremonial bows, the outcome should be predetermined, no?
no. the little guy picked up the star headliner and tossed him out of the ring so hard that his diaper came off when he hit the ground. not a pretty sight, but a funny sight to be sure. we have a new yokozuna!
switching to a sport i actually know something about, when a college football coach records an unbelievable upset of a stronger team and is asked about this after the game, he usually invokes one of two stock lines, either:
"that's why pencils come with erasers" or
"that's why we play the games".
hiltzik's performance in this bout opened a window into an insecure soul, trepidatious, perhaps even lonely, and definitely in need of imaginary friends to keep it company and provide moral support. i suspect there's more to this story than the times has disclosed. did hiltzik appropriate the identity of his colleague from his moscow days, masha the real working journalist? this would be even worse than hacking into her email.
Posted by: bruce koshi | April 30, 2006 at 08:47 AM
Matt,
If you were a shopkeeper, and you knew that there were a readily identifiable group of people, who, on average, were convicted of crimes against property more frequently per-capita than the general populace, would you request that this entire group not enter your shop?
Would it matter if you had personal experience running other stores and that this experience had reinforced your observation that some members of that group were trouble-makers?
Posted by: anon2 | April 30, 2006 at 07:36 AM
Kyda hit it on the head. The idea that the pseudonyms are the problem is missing the point., and at worst, is an outright denial of the reality of the Hiltzik situation. It's all about the integrity, people! Can we not ask journalists and others we trust to use new technology responsibly? Must we nanny-state everything? If the Times chooses to do so, then it just proves that it does not get the internet.
A good example of a major news site with comments that WORKS, is digg.com. Thousands of hits a day, and hundreds of comments hit the stories that are posted. However, the comments are moderated by the community. If someone is a cad or a dupe, he is consistantly modded down by the community itself. Slashdot follows a similar model. And the crazy thing is, it works!
These publications "get" the internet. If your problem is saturation and the unsavory characters it brings, then empower the reading community to decide who is misbehaving! Nobody likes to read dreck, and nobody likes to let others read dreck, either. You don't form a successful web-based readership by lording and striking down everyone who doesn't abide by your arbitrary rules. You enable freedom and take measures to encourage responsibility and pride in your readers. Make them feel responsible for the things they read. That is the X-factor in why online publications are seemingly getting more popular than dead-tree.
The only downside being that whatever Michael Hiltzik wrote during his tenure (as himself or his many imaginary friends), would most likely be modded down as "trolling", but ah well.
Oh, and one more thing about anonymity, "magic rings", and the like. Puh-leez. If all I told you was that my name was Chad Harris, you still wouldn't know who I was. I could be (Google searching...) associate professor in the Department of Kinesiology at Boise State, or I could be a soap star. I'm still no more invisible than I would be if I used my preferred moniker "Arch Radish" (which I am going to use in protest if I feel the need to post here again.)
Once again, THE SYSTEM is not to blame. Uncouth abusers of it are.
Posted by: Chad Harris, who's so gonna start using Arch Radish | April 30, 2006 at 04:39 AM