A very interesting journalistic ethics tempest is brewing over the Los Angeles Times’ suspension of Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik’s blog due to his use of a pseudonym in posting blog comments.
Hiltzik, who in addition to his columnist duties writes the Golden State blog for the LA Times, posted under a pseudonym some comments on the blog of conservative activist Patrick Frey, an assistant Los Angeles district attorney who himself writes under a pseudonym Patterico. Frey apparently took umbrage at the comments and did a little forensic investigation to trace Hiltzik’s comments back to the journalist.
Then the fireworks began. Frey went into a tizzy about the assumed names and somehow the Times ended up suspending Hiltzik’s blog. In an editor’s note on Hiltzik’s blog, the Times said
The Times has suspended Michael Hiltzik’s Golden State blog on latimes.com. Hiltzik admitted Thursday that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own. That is a violation of The Times ethics guidelines, which require editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The guidelines apply to both the print and online editions of the newspaper.
Prior to his blog’s suspension, Hiltzik addressed Frey’s complaints by noting that most blogs accept pseudonymous comments and the vast majority of commenters on Frey’s own blog use pseudonyms.
He seems to think that pseudonymous posting is deceptive, though he can’t articulate why that should be, given the abundance of pseudonyms and anonymity on his own blog starting with the name on the banner. He makes a stab at rationalizing his selective exposure of one out of his scores of pseudonymous commenters by complaining that my comments were “acid-tongued” or “insulting.” This is a curious cavil, given the overall tone of his blog, characterized by his pigeonholing of his postings about “left-wing” newspapers (among other targets) under the category “morons,” his habit of accusing editors and writers of the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers of deliberately slanting news articles, and the coded racism of his rants about illegal immigration. But then, one of the defining characteristics of Frey’s style is the casual attribution of moral and intellectual faults to others that he exhibits in stupendous measure himself.
Later in the same post, Hiltzik notes that 230 of the 259 comments on one of Frey’s posts were pseudonymous. All of this appears to be true, and it’s very common for many people, including people I know, to post pseudonymous comments on this blog.
So why, given the accepted practice of assumed names on blogs, did the Times suspend Hiltzik? It somehow seems wrong and hasty and not in keeping with good journalism for the Times to so quickly shut down an otherwise solid writer’s blog. Plus, do bona fide journalists not have the right that every other writer on the Internet has - to post under a pseudonym?
It could be that Hiltzik stuck his chin out by posting comments on his own blog using a false name, which left the editors with no choice but to cite him for a technical violation of the paper’s policies. This could be a slap on the wrist just to remind writers what the rules are.
It could also be many other things — the anti-LA Times blogosphere (which is surprisingly huge and populated by people who need to resume taking their meds) is rampant with many allegations related to Hiltzik. But many of these blogs are so filled with rage, and to me, frequently incoherent, that I would never repeat the allegations here.
Whatever the case may be, conservative writers act as if it’s Christmas morning. Finally, a scandal, if you can call it that, that proves the “left-wing” media — their words, not mine — are filled with nothing but bums.
Update: Alright already. I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that I’m either stupid or ignorant (I’ve even been branded a “lefty”) for not understanding the real issue behind Patterico’s outrage over Hiltzik’s deception. The real issue, according to commenters, is that Hiltzik was behaving like a sock puppet, posing under an assumed name to give the perception that someone aside from Hiltzik agreed with Hiltzik’s point of view.
Here’s the problem I have with leading with this “spin” on the issue. First, my piece was about the LA Times’ suspension of Hiltzik’s blog, and the Times says that Hiltzik violated its policies on how its writers identify themselves. The Times didn’t say that Hiltzik’s blog was suspended because he was a sock puppet.
Secondly, sock-puppetry is a subjective matter. Where’s the dividing line between offering a comment under a pseudonym that advances one’s point of view and out-and-out intent to deceive readers that multiple people are expressing the same view when only one person in reality is?
Fundamentally the problem is indeed that Hiltzik was advancing an opinion under an assumed name — that’s an objectively verifiable fact. Beyond that, it’s up for debate because commentary is inherently subjective and hard to peg.
However, if it is true that Hiltzik referred to himself in the third person in his pseudonymous blog posts, that is dicey. Not because it falls into the category of sock-puppetry (which I can’t say for sure it does or doesn’t) but because it’s weird to refer to oneself in the third person even when one writes under a pseudonym. It does imply an intent to deceive — the issue is why?
Cynthia Brumfield at 7:58 PM|Comments(5)
I am an unapologetic "lefty" and probably have litle common ground with most of Hiltzik's critics. But unfortunately in this case they happen to be right.
The details of Patterico's post make Hiltzik's intent to deceive abundantly clear, and Hiltzik's response was excruciatingly disingenuous, not at all addressing the substance of Patterico's accusations.
Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 24, 2006 9:15 AM
You state that Hiltzik adressed Frey's complaints. No, he didn't. He created a strawman and attacked Frey for hypocrisy even though Frey went out of the way to state in his first post that pseudonym were not the problem and had nothing to do with Frey's complaints. I understand why Hiltzig is trying to make pseudonyms the issue. Because it is a great club to beat Patterico with. "Look, he used to hide his real name and look at how many of his posters do the same thing." But Patterico never attacked Hiltzik for pseudonyms, he attacked him for using pseudoyms to create a false impression of multiple defenders of his point of view and even giving himself compliments on his writing and stunning logic.
If you only wanted to discuss the L.A. Times suspension why did you focus on Hiltzigs strawman attack on Frey. If you read Frey's original post and Hiltziks response it is obvious that Hiltzig, instead of responding to the actual complaints that Frey made against him, defended himself against charges that were not made by Frey. And he even used this phoney defense to charge Frey with hypocracy.
Hiltzik still hasn't responded to Patterico's charges. You used Hiltzik's defense of himself of charges by Frey that Frey did not make. Hiltzik is trying to shift attention to a more defensible position without addressing the real issues. You seem to be helping him ignore the initial charges by reprinting his strawman defense and by repeating the hypocrite argument that Hiltzik made that is baseless if you actually read the original post.
Posted by: kevin peters at April 23, 2006 6:59 PM
The issue is not the use of pseudonyms, it's the deliberate attempt by Hizek to manipulate his readers. He was trying to con them into thinking that a larger number of people agreed with his argument then there actually were. It's like a writer printing an article in a newspaper and then printing letters to the editor under another name that praise the writer's ideas, go after the target of the article, and then tell the writer what a brilliant person they are. In addition to being a sign of a large ego that can't wait for others to praise him so he does it himself, it is aslo an attempt to deceive his readers. Should he be fired? No, as long as he issues a sincere apology.
There are valid reasons for people to use a pseudonym. I don't but I understand why some others do. Hiltzik was being dishonest.
Posted by: kevin peters at April 23, 2006 4:03 PM
You either intentionally or ignorantly fail to understand the real issue. I have not read your blog before so I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.
Using a pseudonym to post on blogs, or message boards, or in gaming communities, or any other place on the internet is an accepted practice.
Using multiple identities to create false allies for your arguments and refering to yourself in the third person in an attempt to mislead others in that respective community has long been held as an unpardonable interweb sin. It is considered to be dishonest, and cowardly, and has resulted in lots of people being run out of their respective internet community. People who do this become the laughing stock of the community and their ruined reputation lives on in infamy years after they have been excommunicated.
For a professional journalist to be caught red handed is an embarrassment to not only him but to his profession and his employer.
I hope you realize what his real offense is and amend or update your post.
Posted by: The Ugly American at April 23, 2006 4:02 PM
It is evident to me that you have not read my post in which I laid out the case against Hiltzik. The paper's motivations and reasons are their own, but speaking for myself, Hiltzik's use of a pseudonym is not the issue. I say that very, very clearly in my post. The issue is that Hiltzik pretended that his pseudonyms were people different from him, and used them as "sock puppets" to praise and defend his work and arguments.
Posted by: Patterico at April 23, 2006 1:49 AM
Blogs We Read
