Hiltzik Calls Me a Liar Again
L.A. Times columnist Michael Hiltzik calls me dishonest in the latest post on his L.A. Times-sponsored-blog (all emphasis mine):
How can you tell when a conservative blogger is unwilling to address an issue honestly? When he tortures your words into something you haven’t written, and then critiques the imaginary result. The propagandist Patrick Frey, or “Patterico,” a serial builder of straw men in this vein, tried it again recently with a column I wrote on Costa Mesa’s would-be immigration policy. He writes that my column
demonizes a pilot program in Costa Mesa designed to check the immigration status of suspects in violent crimes. Hiltzik denounces the entire concept as demagoguery. But what is demagogic about an effort to deport violent illegals?
As a digest of my column, this rates a “D.”
According to Hiltzik, his post and column in no way suggested that the Costa Mesa program is demagoguery. Nothing could be further from the truth! Why, only a “propagandist” and “serial builder of straw men” could possibly make such an outrageous accusation!
Where did I get the crazy idea that Hiltzik was denouncing the program as demagoguery? Why, from Hiltzik’s earlier post, which said:
This is what happens when confusion and paralysis at the federal level produce a gaping vacuum in federal policy: The vacuum gets filled by demagogues, large and petty alike. And that brings us to the City of Costa Mesa.
Who’s being dishonest here?
You be the judge..
P.S. At least he didn’t analogize me to a “Stalinist” this time. That’s an improvement . . . right?
P.P.S. Note the difference between me and the professional journalist: my initial post criticized Hiltzik’s column without calling him names.
Hiltzik is reality and accuracy challenged. He tends to write a lot of stuff criticizing Potterico and Hugh Hewitt for alleged crimes they never committed. The best way to eliminate childish behavior such as that of Hiltzik is to extinguish it by ignoring it. He can play with his mud pies in the corner until it’s time for him to go home to Mommy for dinner.
Mike Myers (3a4363) — 4/7/2006 @ 8:36 pmThe big question is will Hiltzik comment here again, or is he still smarting from the whuppin’ he took the last time he joined us. As I recall, he still owes us an explanation for the posts that disappeared from his blog a few months back.
[Indeed. I directly asked him whether he had deleted the posts from James Chen about the paper’s declining circulation, and he never did answer that or give any kind of explanation, did he? We should not forget that. Thanks for reminding me. — Patterico]
JVW (d667c9) — 4/7/2006 @ 8:40 pmPatterico asked, “Who’s being dishonest here?”
Michael Hiltzik is being dishonest in this instance, which is consistent with his past pattern of dishonest reporting, and is combined with his typical high handed arrogance when called out. The man’s a cheap shot artist who talks the talk, but runs and hides when it’s time to face the music.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 4/8/2006 @ 7:24 amDid you really expect anything better from him?
Grant (d8da01) — 4/8/2006 @ 9:09 amLet Flap be blunt…..
Hiltzik really is a POS.
Flap
Flap (54ecdd) — 4/8/2006 @ 9:17 am“How can you tell when a conservative blogger is unwilling to address an issue honestly? When he tortures your words into something you haven’t written, and then critiques the imaginary result.”
Since this is a fair description of human communication in general, what the fellow’s actually said is revealed by the political adjective:
“How can you tell when a conservative blogger is unwilling to address an issue honestly? When he disagrees with me.”
Now I’ve gone and done it myself. Oh well.
SecretAgentMan (dee0e4) — 4/8/2006 @ 9:45 amP.P.S. Note the difference between me and the professional journalist: my initial post criticized Hiltzik’s column without calling him names.
And you should be congratulated and encouraged not to sink to his level in future posts. It is about time we in the blogosphere stop all the “name-calling as debate” and stick to beating our opponents with facts not flames. Lets banish “wing-nut” and “moonbat” from the language. Stick with the facts and see what happens.
When Dan Aykroyd called Jane Curtin an “ignorant slut” that was supposed to be satire.
That Lawyer Dude (d656d4) — 4/8/2006 @ 6:32 pmHate to say it, but when what you’re responding to is self-satire anyway, as so much of what, for example, Hiltzik, writes is…
McGehee (5664e1) — 4/9/2006 @ 6:11 amPatrick,
Lincoln (f1223b) — 4/9/2006 @ 3:48 pmA few reasons I wouldn’t just’grin and bear it’ for Mr. Hiltzik:
1)For evil to triumph,it is only necessary good men do nothing.Sure it’s a petty evil,but the guy is dishonest.
2)You’ll feel better.
3)If you raise enough of a commotion,his boss may actually read his column.Then,who knows?