Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos
Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet” identities — identities which he pretends is someone other than himself?
Read on and judge for yourself. As for me, I’ve made up my mind, and the answer is “yes.”
In an early post on his L.A. Times-sponsored Golden State blog, Times columnist Michael Hiltzik was criticized by a couple of commenters calling themselves “Chad” and “Booker.” These commenters left juvenile comments mocking Hiltzik for explaining blogs to his readers. A commenter named “Mikekoshi” rose to Hiltzik’s defense, scolding the commenters for criticizing Hiltzik’s column:
“Mikekoshi” has defended Hiltzik before. For example, in April 2004, L.A. Observed’s Kevin Roderick posted an item about one of Hiltzik’s Golden State columns. In comments to that post, someone named David Poland posted a comment critical of Hiltzik, wondering: “who is whispering in Hiltzik’s ear and what are their motives?” Commenter “Mikekoshi” left a comment ridiculing Poland, asking: “Where has Mr. Poland been the last three years?” In a later comment, Mikekoshi echoed the point made in Hiltzik’s column: that Reuters, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal had fallen for a ploy by Kirk Kerkorian to artificially inflate the value of MGM stock.
“Mikekoshi” has commented on various blogs over the past two or three years, including L.A. Observed, Brad DeLong, Washington Monthly — and most recently, at Hiltzik’s blog, and at my own blog. Mikekoshi and Hiltzik appear to get along quite well. In comments on his blog, Hiltzik has praised Mikekoshi’s arguments. For his part, Mikekoshi has lobbed rude insults at folks known to be disliked by Hiltzik, such as Cathy Seipp, Hugh Hewitt, and myself. Mikekoshi is also a fan of the Los Angeles Times, and often rushes to defend the paper when I attack it in posts on my blog — his comments dripping with venom and inaccuracies alike.
If Mikekoshi sounds a lot like Michael Hiltzik, that’s no coincidence. Because “Mikekoshi” is, in fact, Michael Hiltzik.
Since at least 2004, Hiltzik has left comments on the Internet under an invented pseudonym, at times explicitly pretending to be someone other than Michael Hiltzik. Actually, as we shall see below, the evidence is overwhelming that he has used more than one pseudonym. Hiltzik and his pseudonymous selves have echoed each other’s arguments, praised one another, and mocked each other’s enemies. All the while, Hiltzik’s readers have been unaware that (at a minimum) the acid-tongued “Mikekoshi,” who pops up from time to time at Hiltzik’s favorite blogs (including his own) defending Hiltzik and his newspaper, is in fact Hiltzik himself.
Before I present to you the proof of the charge I have made, let’s get to know Mikekoshi a little better.
Mikekoshi’s comments, like Hiltzik’s, are often . . . sharp-tongued. For example, on L.A. Observed, Mikekoshi described Cathy Seipp as a “tool” and as someone “hampered by her own ignorance.” On my blog, Mikekoshi said this about Hugh Hewitt:
PCD has one thing right: The prospect of having Hugh Hewitt running around loose in public without a muzzle should make any intelligent person nervous.
Mikekoshi has insulted me on my blog, in comments like this:
Congratulations, Patterico, for a new high-water mark in dopey criticism.
and this:
What a buffoonish post this is.
and he has insulted my commenters with comments such as this:
Charles: Spoken like another bloviating illiterate. Congrats for joining the club.
In these and other comments on my blog, Mikekoshi has combined an insulting tone; a poor grasp of facts and logic; a love of strawman arguments; a hatred of conservatives and lawyers in general, and of me and Hugh Hewitt specifically; and an strangely obsessive defensiveness about the L.A. Times.
Sound familiar?
But the weirdest thing about Mikekoshi is the way that he and Hiltzik praise each other, and back each other up — all the while pretending that they are different people. I have already mentioned how Mikekoshi defended one of Hiltzik’s first posts on his L.A. Times blog, and how Mikekoshi argued with a critic of Hiltzik’s on L.A. Observed.
But the admiration doesn’t just flow one way. Hiltzik has also praised Mikekoshi — when Mikekoshi was (in Hiltzik’s estimation) showing up an enemy of Hiltzik’s in an argument.
Back in January, Hiltzik wrote a post on his own Golden State blog slamming me for supposedly misinterpreting an L.A. Times editorial. (I hadn’t.) In the comments to that post, Hiltzik became embroiled in a dispute with a commenter named Specter. (See this comment and scroll down).
A couple of days later, “Mikekoshi” started taking Specter to task in comments on my blog about an unrelated topic. And back on his own blog, Hiltzik praised Mikekoshi for ripping Specter’s credibility to shreds.
The timing of it all is revealing. At 12:54 p.m. on January 30, Hiltzik, commenting as Mikekoshi, left a comment on my site criticizing Specter. The comment ended with this zinger:
What’s that that just whizzed out the door? It’s your credibility, Specter.
At 1:02 p.m., just 8 minutes later, Hiltzik left a comment in his own name in the comments at his own Golden State blog, praising Mikekoshi’s arguments against Specter on my blog:
Specter:
I see that a commenter over at Patterico has ripped your credibility on these 20 issues to shreds.
For the amusement of readers here, the Patterico comments in question start here:
http://patterico.com/2006/01/29/4176/a-challenge-for-the-lefty-commenters-here/#comment-30670
Here is a screenshot:
Further down the thread at his own blog, Hiltzik gloated again in this comment:
For anyone interested, Specter is getting his head handed to him over at the Patterico blog for trying to sleaze out from under his flat misstatements of fact. And that’s a conservative blog. Follow the link above, and enjoy the carnage.
“And that’s a conservative blog.” Why did Hiltzik say that? Here’s why: Hiltzik was arguing that the arguments made against his enemy Specter at my blog were especially credible, because they were being made by some commenter at a conservative blog. Here’s a screenshot:
The thing is, the comments at my blog that Hiltzik praises here weren’t being made by some random commenter at a conservative blog, as Hiltzik seemed to suggest. They were being made by Michael Hiltzik himself. The bizarre part is that Hiltzik was simply praising himself. He used a pseudonym to make arguments against someone he already didn’t like, and then praised the arguments made by himself under that pseudonym.
How do I know this? How can I say that Hiltzik is Mikekoshi? Am I simply surmising based upon the similarity of his verbiage and viewpoints to Hiltzik’s?
No, I’m not. The proof is overwhelming. And it’s surprisingly easy to find — once you know that Hiltzik is Mikekoshi. (If you don’t know that, then you’ll be left in the dark — just like this Hiltzik commenter, who read a comment by Mikekoshi on Hiltzik’s blog, and was fooled into thinking that it had been made by someone other than Hiltzik.)
The simplest way to prove it is through a simple Google search for Hiltzik and Mikekoshi. Among the top results are links to what appears to be an Internet mailing list having something to do with sumo wrestling. The first link is a page with a message responding to a message from Hiltzik. From here you can scroll backward in time to the original message, which bears Hiltzik’s full name, his title as a Los Angeles Times Financial Staff Writer, his work e-mail address, telephone number, and fax.
The message is signed “Mikekoshi.”
Other links from the Google search reinforce this, including a link to the mailing list, with Hiltzik listed as “Mikekoshi”:
and a members list, listing Hiltzik/Mikekoshi as a member:
I could stop right there, but there’s more. It turns out that Mikekoshi also shares the same Adelphia IP address as Michael Hiltzik.
Mikekoshi has, to date, used two different IP addresses in 18 comments on my blog. I will not set out the entire addresses, but one begins with “69″ and one begins with “70.”
Only one other commenter here has ever used the same IP address as Mikekoshi’s IP address beginning with “69″: Michael Hiltzik, who commented here twice using his own name. (Here and here.) Both comments are appended to this post critical of a Hiltzik post.
Here’s the chronology: Mikekoshi posted this comment using the “69″ IP address on January 30 at 5:20 p.m. Michael Hiltzik posted this comment the next day, January 31, at 9:59 p.m., using the same IP address. He posted another comment within the hour. Less than a week later, Mikekoshi posted this comment on February 6 — again using the same IP address.
Hiltzik’s IP address is the same as Mikekoshi’s. Nobody else has commented here using that IP address.
Even the little details point to Hiltzik’s being Mikekoshi. Mikekoshi has commented primarily on sites on Hiltzik’s limited blogroll, including Washington Monthly (where Hiltzik has been a guest poster), Brad DeLong’s blog, and L.A. Observed. Mikekoshi speaks like Hiltzik. He insults the same people Hiltzik doesn’t like. And they both love the L.A. Times.
Is that the end of the story? No . . . the plot thickens further.
The blog Independent Sources reports on a comment left on their site by someone called “Nofanofcablecos.” The comment is appended to this post, and the comment’s opening line displays Hiltzik/Mikekoshi’s usual tact:
Boy, you guys are stupid.
The topic of Nofanofcablecos’s comment ended up being the subject of Michael Hiltzik’s L.A. Times column two days later. After calling the bloggers “stupid,” Nofanofcablecos argued in the comment that wewanttvchoice.com (aka TV4US) is “a front for the phone companies, which are pushing the State Assembly bill to deregulate their own TV service while keeping the cable companies regulated.”
In an amazing coincidence, just two days later, that argument was the thesis of Michael Hiltzik’s Golden State column.
It gets better. The Independent Sources guys say that “Nofanofcablecos” found their site by searching for “Hiltzik” from an L.A. Times computer.
And now, for the coup de grace: “Nofanofcablecos” left a comment on my site recently, on a post of mine that had criticized Hiltzik for misrepresenting the facts about Hugh Hewitt’s blog traffic. Nofanofcablecos supported Hiltzik’s position. And he spoke about Hiltzik in the third person:
The post you linked to doesn’t say it’s one randome day. It says he’s tracked Hewitt over a two-month periuod and the decline has been steady. How do you explain that? Also, wasn’t he just responding to Hewitt’s point that his newspaper’s circulation decline reflected its politics? As a commenter on his site said, turnabout is fair play. If Hewitt claims the newspaper’s losing readers because it’s too liberal, it sure looks like Hewitt’s losing readers because he’s a conservative crackpot.
His IP address wasn’t from the L.A. Times — but guess what? It was the same as Mikekoshi’s other IP address — the one beginning with “70.” No other commenter on my site has ever used that IP address other than Mikekoshi and Nofanofcablecos. And, just to nail it down completely, I have verified that this address is one of two IP addresses used by Nofanofcablecos at Independent Sources (the other one being the L.A. Times address already mentioned).
Hiltzik has apparently denied to another blogger that he is “Nofanofcablecos,” and “Nofanofcablecos” implied in the comment thread linked above that he is not Hiltzik.
Do you believe that?
It’s true that I don’t have screenshots equating “Nofanofcablecos” with “Michael Hiltzik,” like I have with the Mikekoshi sock puppet. But imagine what would have to have happened for “Nofanofcablecos” to be someone else. Someone other than Hiltzik would have to have been searching for the term “Hiltzik” on a Saturday night from an L.A. Times computer. That person would have to have been making the same argument that Hiltzik would make two days later in his column. That person would have to have left another comment from a different computer that just so happens to share an IP address with “Mikekoshi,” who is conclusively shown to be Hiltzik from the above evidence.
I’m not buying it, and you’re not, either. “Nofanofcablecos” is Michael Hiltzik, too.
And he referred to himself in the third person.
Why does this matter — or does it? After all, I’m obviously not objecting to use of pseudonyms by bloggers and blog commenters. How could I be? I mean, you’re reading a post by someone who calls himself “Patterico.” And, while I made the decision to make my real name public long ago (it’s Patrick Frey), many of my commenters use pseudonyms. So what’s the big deal?
Here’s the thing. I am actually a strong defender of people’s right to comment anonymously, or pseudonymously. I myself was semi-pseudonymous for the first several months of this blog. But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.
I don’t go around pretending to be someone else. I am accountable for what I say. If I were anonymous commenter “Patterico,” defending the arguments and actions of well-known blogger “Patrick Frey,” I wouldn’t be surprised if people found that fact worth sharing. And as far as I know, my blog commenters are not going around pretending to be people they’re not, commenting on themselves using pseudonyms. If I found out that they were doing that, I’d let ‘em have it.
John Lott has endured much ridicule for posing on the Internet as a person other than himself, and justly so. Is this any different? You be the judge.
The one thing I know for sure is this: This just isn’t the way that bloggers do things.
UPDATE: L.A. Times editors have suspended Hiltzik’s blog. I have mixed feelings about this. I will have more to say about this in a separate post. [FURTHER UPDATE: That post is here.]
Also, I have corrected a typo in the post. Thanks to Jim Treacher “Tim Jreacher” for the heads-up.
This is hilarious. You might want to forward this link to the big wigs at the LA Times if you haven’t already.
Make sure you include a link to my comment: Hey, LA Times bigwigs — Matt Hoy, professional journalist here with 11+ years experience, I’m willing to do Hiltzik’s job without being a big embarrassment like he his right about now. I mean, I’ll probably make Barbra Streisand mad again, but she’s no longer a subscriber, so no worries there.
Just for the record: Journalistic ethics shouldn’t be seen as a lower, bastardized form of “ethics.” Thanks for making the rest of us look bad Hiltzik.
Comment by Hoystory — 4/20/2006 @ 1:08 am
Patterico:
How’s come you get to be in all these exciting blogfeuds, and we never get anything like that over at
Big LizardsLeg Buzzards?Ddyfad
Comment by Dafydd — 4/20/2006 @ 1:09 am
[...] Patrick Frey over at Patterico’s Pontifications has exposed Los Angeles Times columnist/blogger Michael Hiltzik as a dishonest, conniving … journalist. You see, Patterico has pretty solid evidence that Hiltzik has been pretending to be other people on the ‘net to both praise himself and to attack others. [...]
Pingback by Hoystory » Blog Archive » They’re called sock puppets — 4/20/2006 @ 1:16 am
The Internet and Identity
There is a famous cartoon dating from the early days of the internet with the tag “on the Internet no one knows you’re a dog”. This is true but total anonymity is rather harder than people think and will, I believe get much harder. Perhaps more to t…
Trackback by L'Ombre de l'Olivier — 4/20/2006 @ 2:49 am
Do you think that Hiltzik will finally get a summons to his boss’ office after this? If he isn’t reprimanded in some way, then it tells a lot about the integrity of the people running the Dog Trainer.
Comment by Bill Schumm — 4/20/2006 @ 4:08 am
Semi-justly. The “semi” refers to the fact that only some of the ridicule derived from the ancient Mary Rosh incident, which actually happened. Much more undeserved ridicule is based on the more recent crap Tim Lambert made up, and other bloggers (including Michelle Malkin) have lazily linked to.
Probably not, but one thing to keep in mind is that many homes have multiple computers sharing one IP address, so if Hiltzik has kids old enough to try to defend him online, and all of the pseudonymous comments come from the Adelphia address, it’s possible one of them is the culprit.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 4:19 am
Patterico:
Do you guys mean Professor John R. Lott, who has authored several books on the efficacy of handguns used by private citizens in self defense?
Or is this some different other John Lott?
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 4/20/2006 @ 4:49 am
Busted! Woohoo! This is good…
Comment by Justin Levine — 4/20/2006 @ 5:19 am
Mr. Hiltzik, in my view, is no different than the other mass media “bloggers” who can’t get their heads out of their nether regions long enough to realize that what flies in the newspaper world is TRANSDIMENTIONALLY different than what goes on in the blogging scene.
I mean, seriously, check out the post that Chad and Booker were mocking. He, himself, is God’s gift to the blogging scene engaging in a Great Experiment. He knows the consolidation of blogging is inevitable. Eventually, all popular blogs will be run by big companies with agendas. And I’ll bet you a mint that he thinks that the LA Times should be one of those companies at the forefront of the change.
Never mind that most bloggers are working-class individuals running a Livejournal or Blogspot site, anyway. They don’t NEED to have big numbers to survive. Hiltzik’s livelihood depends on people reading him all the time.
And that spills over into other things, like Hugh Hewitt’s supposed readership dip by people who don’t know the blogging dynamic. Blogging dips are seldom permanent. Subscription cancellations aren’t. But Hiltzik is a newpaper shill first, blogger second, and can’t get his head around the difference.
So, it hardly suprises me that he would attempt something like this, and never expect to get caught.
No, it’s not illegal or wrong per se, but it makes you look like a narcissistic moron, Michael.
Comment by Arch Radish — 4/20/2006 @ 5:34 am
Heh.
Its funny really, and oddly it is simultaneously sad. When combined with his ‘wow look at this new-fangled internet thingy I’m doing’ post what it says to me is he simply doesn’t understand that you can’t get away with that sort of thing on the net.
On a more fundamental level though this displays a pretty disturbing level of dishonesty on Hiltzik’s part - especially considering his position at the LATimes.
Combined with his selectively post filtering on his threads Hiltzik now has a bit less than zero credibility.
Comment by Dwilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 5:34 am
#8 Dwilkers-
You nailed it. Obviously you’ve thought this through and understand the issue.
Comment by Wdilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 5:35 am
#9 Wdilkers-
Thanks, I agree I nailed it. Enjoyed your comment, you are really smart.
Comment by Wdilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 5:36 am
As you can see though one must be very careful doing this, so you don’t forget which role you are playing and which tag says what at which time.
Comment by Dwilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 5:38 am
Patterico: I think your case is persuasive.
Xrlq is not being truthful. You can read about one of Lott’s other sock puppets here. Xrlq has not offered any rebuttal to this analysis other than calling me names.
Dafydd, yes it’s that John R Lott, except that he’s not a Professor. Until recently he was a resident scholar at the AEI.
Comment by Tim Lambert — 4/20/2006 @ 5:39 am
Patterico -
Well done, including the organization and pacing of the analysis. Good detective work and an even better “busting”!
That guy, well, to quote the Immortal Bugs, “What a maroon!”
A couple years back, I read an interview given by a prominent anti-nuke. One assertion that I considered particularly egregious was prefaced in defense or support with the phrase, “It’s been said that”. It caught my attention because, well, it HAD been said before, but only once that I recalled. I had noted it then, when it had happened, and had thought it egregious then, also. When I checked, the person making that claim was - you guessed it! - the same guy. He was citing his own previous statement in support of himself!
Still, as bad as that example of mine is, at least the guy was not pretending to be someone else when defending/attacking.
If Hiltzik has any professional pride he will …. Well, no point completing THAT sentence, eh-what?!
Comment by jim — 4/20/2006 @ 5:39 am
Dafydd, you are correct. Lambert’s response regarding “Professor Lott” is technically true, but highly misleading. He was indeed a resident scholar at AEI for the past few years, but was a research fellow at University of Chicago when the study was originally published, and was at Yale in between. Technically, his title was not “professor” at the time; this is one of many non-issues Lambert has made hay over.
Lambert’s allegation that I was untruthful is not only a lie, but an unusually brazen one, given its timing. Barely a week has gone by since Jim Purtilo, one of the many individuals Lambert has falsely accused of being a Lott sock puppet, has surfaced. Lambert knows this, he’s just betting that the rest of you don’t.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that Lambert has come damned close to libeling Patterico, too, not because of anything Patterico said or did, but simply as a cheap effort to get at me - and that only because I’ve stood up to his reckless smears against others.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 6:05 am
Interesting point of ethics here for the LA Times. Are they going to take this seriously, or just shrug and say “whatever. What our people do on the internet on their own time is none of our business”? If they try some variation of “it’s just blogs,” I don’t think that will fly for long, because these cases involve the defense of the Times and of stories Hiltzik wrote for the Times, not on, say, a sumo-wrestling discussion board.
It also happened on the blog of an outspoken critic of the Times. It looks like Hiltzik picked the worst possible forum to engage in this sort of deception, and it will now be much harder for the Times to look away.
But let me try a little devils’ advocacy here: How deceptive is it? Hiltzik knew this information was publicly available through a google search, and that people who did due diligence on Mikekoshi’s comments could have found out the truth pretty quickly, as you did. Furthermore, he gave you both “Michael Hiltzik’s” and “Mikekoshi’s” IP addresses when he left a comment with each of them, in effect disclosing to you what you needed to know to bust him. He hasn’t taken any efforts other than the use of the third person to disguise the fact that he’s the same guy, has he?
I mean, besides that third “nofanofcablecos” identity, of course. That’s just wack. No defending that one. (I remember looking at that moniker in the recent comments queue and thinking “what kind of bizarre name is that?”)
By the way, you should pay your brilliant and talented guest bloggers more.
–Dee Subya
Comment by See Dubya — 4/20/2006 @ 6:07 am
“Mikekoshi also shares the same Adelphia IP address as Michael Hiltzik.”
Technical question: are you a fan of saving the more dispositive evidence for last at trial as well? Because, I have to say, as I was seeing all the “look at the similarities” arguments I kept thinking “that’s well and good, but there’s hundreds of thousands of numbskulls out there, surely one might actually agree with Hiltzik. Where’s the IP evidence?”
And then I get to see it. Very nice.
Comment by Angry Clam — 4/20/2006 @ 6:12 am
Based on your title and the theological implications of having three-persons in one, I hereby christen Michael Hiltzik/Nofanocablecos/Mikekoshi “Trinity”. by the power invested in me as a guest blogger I hereby direct that from this day forward when any of these individuals are mentioned on this site they be referred to as e.g., Michael “Trinity” Hiltzik, Trinitykoshi, nofanofsockpuppets”Trinity”cablecos, etc.
You may even have to put up a permanent link on your sidebar to this popst, so that first-time visitors will understand who this “Trinity” is.
Comment by See Dubya — 4/20/2006 @ 6:24 am
xlrq: Are you actually complaining that someone said ‘is this guy a professor?’ and Lambert responded, truthfully, that ‘no, he’s not’? I mean, is this argument worth your time? Lambert spoke truthfully, and you claim it’s a non-issue he’s made hay over. It’s not ‘misleading’ to avoid going through all of the trouble to explain other things that, while they don’t make him a Professor, are true. How much of a biography is necessary for Lambert not to be misleading?
..and was at Yale in between. He was also super good looking! *fawn*
Would that have helped?
Comment by Josh Adams — 4/20/2006 @ 6:32 am
Brilliant. Chalk this up as further proof that any time a journalist gets in an argument with a practicing lawyer, bet on the lawyer.
Comment by Crank — 4/20/2006 @ 6:33 am
Sorry wingnuts. Obviously Mr. Mxlplkt has three identities for three personalities and EACH ONE could bring suit against you under the ADA and Fifth Ammendment! BEWARE!!!!!!
Comment by megapotamus — 4/20/2006 @ 6:34 am
Dynamite, Patterico. Remind me never to get on your bad side.
Btw, Allahpundit is a genius.
Comment by Allahpunditkoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 6:37 am
Speaking as a journalist and sometime blogger, I must question whether Hiltzik did anything that comes close to a firing offense. I mean, it sounds rather clumsy and silly, but surely that’s about the worst that can be said of his actions. Public embarrassment seems to me a suitable chastisement.
Comment by Hiawatha Bray — 4/20/2006 @ 6:40 am
Interesting point of ethics here for the LA Times. Are they going to take this seriously, or just shrug and say “whatever. What our people do on the internet on their own time is none of our business”? If they try some variation of “it’s just blogs,” I don’t think that will fly for long, because these cases involve the defense of the Times and of stories Hiltzik wrote for the Times, not on, say, a sumo-wrestling discussion board.
Ehhhh . . . I don’t see it as that big a deal. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with his newspaper, and they need not get involved. The only response necessary is one from Hiltzik himself: okay, you got me, point taken, I shouldn’t do that and won’t again.
Comment by Patterico — 4/20/2006 @ 6:41 am
Xrlq - a reasonable final point but if I understand Patterico correctly, both Mikekoshi and nofanofcablecos surf and post via an LA Times IP address, one such done late at night. I will note it is possible Hiltzik has access to the LA Times server from home which thus might show an LAT IP by a family member from home.
Interesting though if it is his children. (Does he have children?) I don’t think referring in his GS Blog to his children’s insights defending him is a better scenario, particularly if he has a daughter named Amy. And it seems to me if such a little presence on the net is so linkable, the LA Times might consider whether they have the right Hiltzik on staff.
Anyway, nice work, Patterico. I do think it is important. I don’t like to think the media thinks it’s appropriate that their staff are receiving and quoting information from their pseudonymous selves in their own reports.
It’s bad enough I often feel that the “a lot of questions have been raised” line that are in so many controversial reports are really just questions the reporter heard from the next cubicle. This type of thing will fast become a reportorial modus operandi if not stamped out quickly and effectively.
Comment by Dusty — 4/20/2006 @ 6:42 am
Speaking as a journalist and sometime blogger, I must question whether Hiltzik did anything that comes close to a firing offense. I mean, it sounds rather clumsy and silly, but surely that’s about the worst that can be said of his actions. Public embarrassment seems to me a suitable chastisement.
Let me make it very clear that I completely agree with that. The idea of it being a “firing offense” is ludicrous, in my opinion. As I say: the newspaper need not get involved. This is simply a matter of credibility within the blogosphere, nothing more. I think that the only thing necessary is for Hiltzik to simply acknowledge the error in a forthright manner and stop doing it.
Comment by Patterico — 4/20/2006 @ 6:46 am
Josh, you need to read the comments more carefully. Dafydd didn’t ask “is this guy a professor?” He asked whether the references to John Lott were to “Professor John R. Lott, who has authored several books on the efficacy of handguns used by private citizens in self defense” or whether it was a reference to some other individual whose first name also happens to be John, and whose last name also happens to be Lott. Lambert’s pedantry over the meaning of “is” was totally uncalled for.
“Made hay” does not mean lying. It means making a big to-do over a non-issue, as Lambert has done in the past and continues to do now. If I had instead accused Lambert of “making a mountain out of a molehill,” would you now be protesting “but gee whiz, Xlrq [sic], didn’t cha know that there really WAS a molehill?”
No, it wouldn’t have. Holding a position at Yale similar to the one he previously held at Chicago - neither of which is technically “professor,” but both of which are commonly referred to as such - was relevant to the issue Lambert made hay over. Whether you have the hots for the guy, is not.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 6:47 am
Patterico and Hiawatha-
I’m not saying it’s a firing offense at all. Far from it. It’s an embarrassment and Trinity is going to take some heat from this for a long time.
I do think it’s the kind of thing that the LA Times would send around an internal memo about, and perhaps comment on, especially because it did involve them-their equipment, their journalism.
Comment by See Dubya — 4/20/2006 @ 6:48 am
It may be an issue for his paper. Are there ever any “letters to the editor” referring to him?
Comment by nk — 4/20/2006 @ 7:00 am
Patterico - Not a firing offense at all, but if I were the LAT’s lawyer I’d suggest they put a reprimand in his file - this is petty, away-from-work dishonesty, and if it’s not repeated it’s nothing to the LAT, but a newspaper sometimes needs to fire a guy if he racks up a bunch of little black marks, before they get more seriously embarrassed. Sometimes, you need to build your record.
Comment by Crank — 4/20/2006 @ 7:05 am
Patterico,
Thanks for getting this done so fast. I’ll be highly interested in seeing Hiltzik’s reply to this. Maybe he’ll write about it on his blog.
Comment by Bradley — 4/20/2006 @ 7:13 am
Firing offense? Well that’s up to the LATimes of course. I think you guys are gliding over it a bit though.
Hiltzik is an LATimes reporter. The Golden State blog he’s posting at is an LATimes blog, it has “latimes.com BLOG” in the upper right hand corner, his blog has the LATimes logo running up the left hand side. It is the LATimes offcial blog, he is acting as an LATimes employee while he’s doing this. Here’s part of his bio on the LATimes website:
So you have:
* a 20 year employee posting on the company’s website
* selectively filtering the comments
* reposting in the threads under an assumed named criticizing attacking people that don’t agree with him - assuming he lets the comment post - and talking about how smart he is.
* from company offices on company time? (I’m guessing on this one, but I bet its a good guess.)
It is a deliberate effort to mislead - you know, the dictionary definition of a lie. Done under the auspices of and using the resources and good name of a major US newspaper.
I’m not saying he should be fired, I dunno what the right thing is for them to do. This is a serious problem though, or I’d see it that way if I worked there. It goes directly to the problem(s) people have with the MSM nowadays.
Comment by Dwilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 7:13 am
What? A winner of the prestigious
Liberal Medal of HonorPulitzer Prize being dishonest?! No! Say it isn’t so!At most papers, this likely would be considered a firing offense, or at the very least, the reporter would find him/herself on the night cop calls beat again. Newspaper ethics guidelines clearly state that employees cannot misrepresent themselves in the process of newsgathering.
But we all know that’s not going to happen.
The media that so loves to demand accountability from power does nothing of the sort when it comes to their big stars. That’s why Dan Rather was allowed to step down and still works for CBS. That’s why Mitch Albom got a slap on the wrist for making things up. And so on, and so forth.
And that’s why they, along with the Los Angeles Times, are a joke.
Comment by Kevin — 4/20/2006 @ 7:30 am
Dwilkers -
I hope you don’t mind if I pile on some, in that I’d like to offer another thought that just might build off your observations.
Patterico - you seem to have caught Hiltzik deftly and convincingly, with proof. The guy has won stuff and gotten status for writing about … somethings. Have there not been instances where journalists have made up sources, quotations, etc? Like:
- Janet Cook - 1980 - “Jimmy’s World”
- Stephen Glass - 1990s - “Hack Heaven” and others
- Patricia Smith - 1998 - fabricated numerous sources
- Mike Barnicle - 1998 - fabricated quotes
and others, just see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_fraud
Does not Hiltzik’s duplicitous conduct here, apparently proven, call for an investigation of his other work? After all, if he’s done this for as long and on the scale that you seem to have demonstrated, would not simple due diligence by the LAT call for such?
Comment by jim — 4/20/2006 @ 7:33 am
[...] Patterico makes the case that LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik has been dropping comments at both Patterico’s and the LA Times’s blog under an assumed pseudonym. It’s not dispositive but it’s convincing. And amusing. [...]
Pingback by The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » I’m Spartacus! — 4/20/2006 @ 7:42 am
Fantastic work. Linked to you (via my trackbacks) and via Kevin Roderick’s link from this morning. Here’s my own tale of catching two numb-nuts doing the same on my blog:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/04/hihihiltziklari_1.html
Comment by Amy Alkon — 4/20/2006 @ 7:51 am
See Dubya: “But let me try a little devils’ advocacy here: How deceptive is it? Hiltzik knew this information was publicly available through a google search, and that people who did due diligence on Mikekoshi’s comments could have found out the truth pretty quickly, as you did.”
You’re making an assumption that Hiltzik has an understanding about how this whole interweb doohickey thing works at a technical level.
As to apoligies or anything like it, I actually expect the reaction to this will be a screed about digital privacy.
BTW: Sumo wrestling?
Comment by Mark Poling — 4/20/2006 @ 7:54 am
This seems just as bad if not worse than what Ben D. from Redstate did (plagarism) which got him canned from the Wapo Blog.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the LATimes to do anything about it. Fraud and fable is their trade.
Comment by Gabriel Chapman — 4/20/2006 @ 7:58 am
Thanks for clearing that up, Patterico. I can’t say that I spent much time pondering whether Hiltzik’s various posts under different pseudonyms were in fact from the same source — his were just more examples of tin-foil hat moonbattery. Unlike comments from some of the other left-leaning (relative to others here) commenters, such as psyberian and aphrael (to name just a couple), his weren’t really really worth the effort.
Btw, I’ll admit it. I use a pseudonym. But it’s not to make anyone think that I’m a gun-owning, conservative rock star and radio personality, which of course I’m not (I’m not now nor have I ever been a radio personality).
Comment by TNugent — 4/20/2006 @ 8:00 am
Here’s what I said about this over at Winds of Change.NET, where Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger has written a post about Hilzik’s conduct….
Actually, it’s simpler. Hilzik is lying. And if he ever pulls that on Winds, he’ll be IP banned here before you can say “Jack Robinson.”
Comment by Joe Katzman — 4/20/2006 @ 8:07 am
The sad thing is that mikekoshi made his very first appearance at the Golden State blog in the inaugural week - in the post announcing Hiltzik’s entry into the blogosphere.
So he basically began his blogging career as a liar.
Comment by nofanofmikekoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 8:17 am
People think that “Pluto’s Dad” (http://www.eyesontheballnews.com) is a person, and “Pluto” (http://www.plutospage.com) is the same person. But the truth is, i am a doggy, and there is no “pluto’s dad”, that is me too!
Oh wait , I shouldn’t have told you that…
Comment by Pluto — 4/20/2006 @ 8:20 am
Get Stephen an Aspirin
Stephen Schwartz will need some bed rest after this. He was caught deliberate distorting Islamic law regarding apostates by Jihad Watch.Update: Get Los Angeles Times …
Trackback by Chris At Home — 4/20/2006 @ 8:20 am
Oh and one thing I think people have not mentioned, behind a liar, dishonest, etc. what this really makes him is pathetic.
What kind of person posts as someone else to talk about themselves?
Someone very sad and needing attention.
Comment by Pluto — 4/20/2006 @ 8:24 am
J.K., Jim earlier brought up a similar point — anyone ethically challenged enough to pull this kind of stunt needs to have their other work product examined.
Here’s the logic: if you can’t trust a journalist not to mislead you for petty purposes, can you trust them not to mislead you for other reasons? He writes about business and economics, right? If a person will be deceptive for grins and giggles, why wouldn’t the person do it for cash?
BTW, I was partially right about the nature of Hitzlik’s response; it is mostly a screed defending pseuonymity, and accusing Paterico of hypocrisy. Does he ever tackle the issue of intellectual dishonesty? No. But he includes this as an aside:
Very amusing. He’s walking around with the data-analog of his ass hanging out, and he’s accusing Paterico of being a peeping tom for noticing.
Comment by Mark Poling — 4/20/2006 @ 8:32 am
Looks like this is an unhinged mediocrats version of being an army of one in cyberspace.
Comment by Shorse — 4/20/2006 @ 8:42 am
The right-wing blogger Patterico has apparently worked himself into a four-star ragegasm (Tbogg’s inimitable coinage) at the notion of anonymous or pseudonymous postings on his website by me.
Hmmmm. I didn’t think the point was about Patterico having a problem with Hiltzik posting anonymously on this blog at all.
Strawman? Meet Red herring.
Comment by Dwilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 8:44 am
#23 Allahpunditkoshi - f’in hilarious. As usual, you rule. Blog again, already.
What’s funny about this is not that an MSM columnist would stoop to astroturfing in comment sections — after all, any port in a storm. What’s funny is how incompetent it was.
Comment by brett — 4/20/2006 @ 8:49 am
Sorry Patterico, you have got this COMPLETELY WRONG.
Clearly what’s happened is that this poor man is suffering from a schizophrenic split personality disorder and it totally unaware that he is posting under different names. He needs our support and comfort, not harsh judgements that may only worsen his condition.
Shame on you for abusing this poor, innocent victim of mental illness. You may even have committed a hate crime here.
Have you no decency, man?
Comment by TallDave — 4/20/2006 @ 8:55 am
I totally agree with the above poster, who is not me.
Comment by TallDave2 — 4/20/2006 @ 8:56 am
I think the two comments above make an excellent point. Good job, guys!
Comment by TallDave3 — 4/20/2006 @ 8:57 am
Hitzik has essentially admitted to the sock puppetry, even while doing a stupendous job of missing the point:
Check your IP addresses further. Are you sure this guy isn’t m. croche, too?
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 8:58 am
Wait, did someone here actually suggest that Hiltzik’s kids could have been moved to defend their dad in language that sounds exactly like a boring middle-aged business columnist? Okay….
Did someone else actually suggest that this is not how bloggers behave? (Well, not if they think they’ll get caught.)
PS: Cathy Seipp is not “a tool” but extremely brilliant about everything in the entire universe.
Comment by Cathysushi — 4/20/2006 @ 8:59 am
I would just like to point out, while also agreeing with the brilliant points made by TallDave1, TallDave2 and TallDave3 above (none of whom are me), that posting under a pseudonym is perfectly acceptable and not at all deceptive and I can’t understand why anyone would consider it deceptive or misleading.
Comment by TallDave4 — 4/20/2006 @ 9:02 am
If you haven’t yet, follow the link provided by “nofanofmikekoshi” here.
Note that Hiltzik leaves two comments in the thread — one at 12:44 as mikekoshi and another at 1:52 under his own name — both making essentially the same point with the same tone.
Why use two different usernames to do that? To suggest some sort of phony “consensus”? I just don’t get it.
Comment by Allahpunditkoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 9:03 am
Wild stuff.
Am I the only one struck by the similarity of the opening of Mr. Hiltzik’s response to the link in comment #4, above? Like, did he borrow/paraphrase a comment on someone else’s site as his own lead-in? Isn’t that sort of ironic?
Comment by Bobby — 4/20/2006 @ 9:04 am
Allahpundit-
Why use two different usernames to do that? To suggest some sort of phony “consensus”? I just don’t get it.
FWIW, my guess is yes, exactly. I was thinking earlier the only thing missing is a comment by one of the ghosts in one of those threads saying something like:
well, if you take the posts here as any indication, you can see that by 7 to 4 a majority of people disagree with you…
wherein 5 of the 7 posts are Hiltzig himself.
Comment by Dwilkers — 4/20/2006 @ 9:13 am
Hiltzik is really thin skinned. I once sent him an e-mail about some dumb stunt he had done and signed it with my “MD” degree for some reason. It must have been right after I wrote something official. Anyway, I got a series of rants from him in reply accusing me of trying to impress him, or some such nonsense.
I am stunned to learn that he wrote Dealers of Lightning. That is a terrific book. If I had known, I would not have thought he was such a dope. A jerk, yes, but not a dope.
Comment by Mike K — 4/20/2006 @ 9:16 am
I know this because Hiltzik knows this.
Comment by Not Really Mikekoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 9:16 am
TallDave4
Amen to that. Oh, BTW, Xlrq is a genius.
Comment by nofanoftimlambert — 4/20/2006 @ 9:18 am
As an side, nofanoftimlambert is definitely not Xlq. Surely he wouldn’t have gotten his own name wrong if he was. And I got it wrong too, so trust me, I’m not him, either.
XQLR rocks!
Comment by notterriblyfondofdebbieschlusseleither — 4/20/2006 @ 9:21 am
I think Hiltzik has found a way to reverse the Dog Trainer’s declining ciruclation rate–just count each subscriber 3 times.
Comment by Stu707 — 4/20/2006 @ 9:24 am
Sounds to me like this guy is placing “promoting himself” over integrity.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, though. It is awfully tempting what with the ostensible anonymity of the web. to tell the truth, this is why I am against blog where the owner of the blog does not use his real name to blog with, but comes up with a cute nickname.
If you are attempting to offer serious commentary you absolutely MUST use your real name of the very fact that you are hiding behind a fake name puts every last word you say in doubt.
I use my real name on my blog Publius’ forum because I feel I have legitimate points to make and want to be taken seriously.
It HAS, however, caused me some e-mail enemies! So, there is a draw back, of course. Still, I feel it is worth it to be taken seriously.
Comment by Warner Todd Huston — 4/20/2006 @ 9:25 am
I have not been back here in quite some time, but had to bop in smirk…shake my head and say
Michael, Mike, Mikey shame shame shame.
For some reason I am reminded of the TV evangelist character played by Dom Deluise in
“The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”. You know
the one who put the rolled up sock in his pants.
And now we know.
Comment by TheTree — 4/20/2006 @ 9:29 am
I must confess - I am nofanofmikekoshi! I spend much of my day using the pseudonym “Brian Erst”, but that’s just to cover my complete lack of mikekoshi-ness. Mrs. Nofanofmikekoshi will, no doubt, be ashamed and horrified by my double life…
I sure hope that Michael Hiltzik doesn’t find out about this - he doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy who would be symapthetic to my deceptive practices. I mean, look how outraged he was when the phone companies created a phony frontname (TV4Us) for their lobbying effort. It’s like they wanted people to think that a completely independent party just happened to think the same way as they did. I’ll bet they even had the nerve to refer to this phony group when arguing their case in their real names!
Mr. Frey (er, I mean, Patterico) better watch out - Mike’s not real fond of people invading his privacy either…
Comment by nofanofmikekoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 9:31 am
Roses are red
Violets are blue
We’re schizophrenic
And so are we
Michael Hiltzik
Kiztlih Leahcim
Three Faces of Eve
Snarky McNonymous
The Journalist Formerly Known as IP 70.232.09
nofanofgooglesearches
Comment by Totally Not Iowahawk — 4/20/2006 @ 9:36 am
Patterico Nails LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik
[h/t: Hugh Hewitt]
Answer this one: Is there anything wrong with a newspaper columnist writing articles, blogging about them, and then under more than one pseudonym commenting on the very same posts, even to defending against negative commentators o…
Trackback by OKIE on the LAM - In LA — 4/20/2006 @ 9:36 am
Patterico - I love the fact that Sidious/Palpatine calls you a racist in his response. How utterly predictable. Last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.
Comment by Crank — 4/20/2006 @ 9:38 am
It’s stunning how clueless Mr. Hilzik is on this specific issue. He totally ignores Patrick’s (aka Patterico) main thrust that its rather peculiar to adopt a second identity, solely to give support and praise for positions he himself has already set forth.
Following is an abject example…
Comment by bains — 4/20/2006 @ 9:39 am
You guys suck! I know Michael, and he’s really a nice guy and honest too.
I don’t know about this “Nofanofcablecos”. He sounds like a rogue. Don’t trust him. But Michael’s my buddy.
Comment by Mikekoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 9:41 am
Maybe Hiltzik has a son who is a sumo wrestler…then we wouldn’t have a takedown, would we?
Comment by PC14 — 4/20/2006 @ 9:42 am
Never mind… I see the lesson has already been given. Anyone else also try it on Hilzik’s site?
oh what the heck…
great point bains.
Comment by anotherbains — 4/20/2006 @ 9:42 am
LA x 3
Patterico asks:Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet” identities — identities which he pretends is someone other than himself? Read on and judge for yourself. As for me, I’ve made…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 4/20/2006 @ 9:45 am
[...] Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times Golden State blog. LA Observed: Three names better than one? Liberal L.A. Times columnist-blogger Michael Hiltzik and conservative prosecutor-blogger Patterico have been butting heads and online personas ever since the former joined the blogosphere last October. Even earlier, perhaps, if Patterico is right about the case he lays out on his blog this morning. He offers compelling evidence that Hiltzik has been posting argumentative comments on his own Times blog and on Patterico’s blog under the pseudonyms of Mikekoshi and Nofanofcablecos, attacking Patterico and other conservatives and posing as an independent supporter of Hiltzik. You have to wade through some prosecutorial posturing to get to the goods, but Patterico appears to show that 1) Hiltzik has previously used the name Mikekoshi in other online forums, 2) Hiltzik and Mikekoshi recently posted comments on Patterico’s blog from the same IP address, and 3) Nofanofcablecos looks suspiciously like Hiltzik as well. Of course, prosecutors only give the jury one loaded version of a case, so the verdict has to wait on Hiltzik. But these seem like charges he’ll want to answer—and the Times might want to as well. [...]
Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Patterico “OUTS” Los Angeles Times Blogger Michael Hiltzik — 4/20/2006 @ 10:11 am
[...] Damn, I enjoyed this post [...]
Pingback by Pundit Review » Blog Archive » LA Times Michael Hiltzik clobbered, again, by Patterico — 4/20/2006 @ 10:15 am
Why do liberal activist media types always feel its OK to game the system? If it isnt a reporter in a canoe in ankle deep water talking about how bad the flood is then its a “Stunt Muslim” traipsing around a NASCAR event followed by a Dateline camera crew looking to invent some news. In the good old days reporters reported the news, now you need a “temperament” test to get into a lib-occupied university to become either a teacher or journalist and the new expressed goal isnt to report or teach, its to “change the world”. That goal is always underpinned by an elitist sense of enlightenment that allows people like Hiltzik to “employ any means necessary” for the greater good of his ideology because the truth these narcisists cant handle is that their ideology is readily rejected and easily exposed by the “joe six-pack’s” outside of the libs little bubble worlds. Without the agit-prop, propaganda, cropped photos, etc. they dont stand a chance in the arena of ideas.
Comment by Dean Ayer — 4/20/2006 @ 10:18 am
Nice work.
Hiltzik et al = pwn3d.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 4/20/2006 @ 10:18 am
Patterico,
Impressive post for someone who is not a professionally trained journalist.:)
Made my day.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin Whalen — 4/20/2006 @ 10:18 am
This is such a hot idea! I don’t know why I didn’t think of it before!
Have guys read Rightwingsparkle? She is fantastic! Very entertaining blogger. Conservative. Doesn’t allow snarling insults on her blog! She basically ROCKS!
I’m just saying this as one who enjoys her blog.
Comment by ConservativeBabe — 4/20/2006 @ 10:21 am
Lots to chew on here!
At random:
1. Great work by Patterico exposing this nonsense.
2. Domenech was worse. His plagiarism was followed with outright libelous lies about actual people.
2.5 Anyone who hasn’t concluded John Lott’s a joke isn’t paying attention. Lambert may be wrong in places, but Lott has no credibility whatsoever.
You can be a pro-gun person and still think Lott’s a scoundrel.
3. I’m not sure I agree with Patterico that this isn’t disciplinable by the Times. It shows a willingness to commit dishonest acts. It reduces the credibility of the Times.
4. Clam, sometimes when you have a killer piece of evidence, you do save it at trial, especially if the rest of the case is pretty decent. I once had an entire jury look with utter contempt when I dropped the bomb at the end of the case. They went from listening attentively to hating the Defendant for dragging us through a trial where she was obviously guilty.
5. TallDave3 is much smarter than TallDave2.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 4/20/2006 @ 10:27 am
It’s not the crime, it’is the coverup
Comment by James Balmer — 4/20/2006 @ 10:35 am
FLASH - Hiltzik Responds To His Critics
Blue Crab Boulevard has an exclusive, Magic 8-Ball photo of LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik responding to his critics! You saw it here first!
Link to Patterico
…
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard — 4/20/2006 @ 10:43 am
Unbelievable. If I had any doubts, Hiltzik’s non-denial denial and misdirection removed them. Who can take him seriously now — no matter which name he writes under?
Comment by Bradley J. Fikes — 4/20/2006 @ 10:43 am
EXCLUSIVE PHOTO
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/04/20/flash-hiltzik-responds-to-his-critics/
Comment by Gaius Arbo — 4/20/2006 @ 10:45 am
Patterico,
I withdraw my previous suggestion that you consider going easy on Hiltzik. I was wrong, it isn’t that he’s simply a slow learner, obviously there’s more to him than I originally thought.
Comment by Black Jack — 4/20/2006 @ 10:49 am
[...] So says Tom McGuire in comments buried in a rather entertaining flap. Turns out a guy from the LA Times who was commenting as himself and also as “this other guy and I agree with him” got caught by Patterico with his undies in the mangle. [...]
Pingback by Chapomatic » “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” — 4/20/2006 @ 10:55 am
[...] I’ve delayed this one, because it struck me as some guy pretending to be someone else on the internet. Patterico has the story, and it’s some LA Times columnist named Michael Hiltzik posting on the Internet, replying to himself with the name Mikekoshi, and posting elsewhere with that name. Patterico has him dead-to-rights, though I can’t see the point. But the weirdest thing about Mikekoshi is the way that he and Hiltzik praise each other, and back each other up — all the while pretending that they are different people. I have already mentioned how Mikekoshi defended one of Hiltzik’s first posts on his L.A. Times blog, and how Mikekoshi argued with a critic of Hiltzik’s on L.A. Observed. [...]
Pingback by Rathergate.com » A Columnist’s Pseudonym — 4/20/2006 @ 10:56 am
[...] I’ve delayed this one, because it struck me as some guy pretending to be someone else on the internet. Patterico has the story, and it’s some LA Times columnist named Michael Hiltzik posting on the Internet, replying to himself with the name Mikekoshi, and posting elsewhere with that name. Patterico has him dead-to-rights, though I can’t see the point. But the weirdest thing about Mikekoshi is the way that he and Hiltzik praise each other, and back each other up — all the while pretending that they are different people. I have already mentioned how Mikekoshi defended one of Hiltzik’s first posts on his L.A. Times blog, and how Mikekoshi argued with a critic of Hiltzik’s on L.A. Observed. [...]
Pingback by Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog) » A Columnist’s Pseudonym — 4/20/2006 @ 11:01 am
The dude needs to be fired. If he is willing to lie about little things like assuaging his ego on a blog, then lying to the public about more important matters (Iran, illegal aliens, Democrat corruption & graft) is just a matter of scale.
Who can say how many people this self absorbed man has inuendoed to death?
Comment by Papertiger — 4/20/2006 @ 11:02 am
Mr. Hiltzik can leave me out of any slams he utters against my friend, Hugh Hewitt.
I am not Hugh. I like Paul Simon’s “Kodachrome”, Hugh does not.
If the LATimes had any integrity, Hiltzik would be a fading nightmare. But, then again if the LATimes had any integrity…
Comment by PCD — 4/20/2006 @ 11:16 am
The term “sock-puppet” should be phased out and replaced by the more apropos “Hiltzik-puppet”. Please, Mr. Frey, begin this usage so Mr. Hiltzik will forever be remembered.
Comment by Anon — 4/20/2006 @ 11:28 am
I tried to leave this msg on the Golden State Blog but was blocked:
Mr. Hiltzik:
You are threading a needle. If you have two posters (under your own IP address) saying “How great Hiltik is!”, that is not reporting or blogging — that is public Relations. Yet, there is a deeper strain other then schitzophrania with you, you despise the two party system. You would rather there be a dictatorship of the Left then any Republican commentators or officials about. Can either you or your psudonames explain that?
JSF
Comment by JSF — 4/20/2006 @ 11:30 am
MSMers and Their Imaginary Friends
Its tough being a leftist. And with the ongoing layoffs of the declining mainstream media, its probably getting kind of lonely. Patterico tells the amusing and well-documented story of LA Times Michael Hiltzik and his imaginary friends. Sad, but …
Trackback by Pursuing Holiness — 4/20/2006 @ 11:33 am
Fake but accurate postings. Hiltzik’s personal extension of the Dan RaTHer /CBS journalistic ethics.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 4/20/2006 @ 11:52 am
My link: http://krites.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-excuse-is-worse-than-offense.html
Comment by nk — 4/20/2006 @ 11:55 am
Not really.
That’s what anonymity is about.
Sure. You’re in the outing game. Just don’t pretend you’re not.
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 11:59 am
[...] Everybody’s talking about this one, although when you think about it, it ain’t exactly anything new: Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet” identities — identities which he pretends is someone other than himself? [...]
Pingback by Cold Fury » Blog Archive » Bringin’ the funny — 4/20/2006 @ 12:03 pm
Great job Patterico. If this was a fight it would’ve been stopped by now.
Comment by DaveT — 4/20/2006 @ 12:03 pm
Can’t. Stop. Laughing.
Wait, let me create an imaginary friend to praise my brilliant post…
Oops, he can’t stop laughing either!
Comment by Trudger — 4/20/2006 @ 12:04 pm
On The Internet, Why Settle For Being Just One Dog?
I’ve been getting a bit a laugh out of this post at Patterico’s Pontifications today, in which Patterico exposed an L. A. Times columnist wh…
Trackback by Bogus Gold — 4/20/2006 @ 12:11 pm
Actus:
No, it’s not. As long as you post all of your comments under the same pseudonym, and your true identity is not newsworthy, no one should out you. But if you started posting some comments under one name, and others under another, just to make it look as though someone else agreed with you, if “outing” you altogether isn’t fair game, “outing” the fact that Alias #1 and Alias #2 relate to the same person, certainly is.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 12:12 pm
Patterico,
A question:
If Hiltzik had authored a letter to the editor in the print version of the LATimes, under a false identity, had fawned over a recent Hiltzik article while attacking Hiltzik’s critics, would that be a breach of ethics serious enough to warrant firing?
Since Hiltzik is posting on an LATimes Blog how is this issue any different? Credibility is a journalist’s only real prize possession. At what point, does that begin to matter to the Times? Outright dishonesty doesn’t count if happens on a Blog? I think you are being way to lax on this issue.
Comment by pepster — 4/20/2006 @ 12:15 pm
An amazing one-two punch. First Patterico does a fantastic job of outing Hiltzik’s amateurish attempts to bolster his own credibility, and then the commenters hilariously drive the point home by relentlessly lampooning Hiltzik. I (and 10 other people who sounds suspiciously like me but aren’t me) am so tempted to register my own protest on Hiltzik’s blog.
I’ve rarely been so entertained. Nice job all.
Comment by C Student — 4/20/2006 @ 12:16 pm
More sock puppetry
Patterico catches LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik using a couple of sock puppets. Hiltzik admitted making the posts but denied that they were deceptive. I disagree. It is not deceptive to use a pseudonym, but it is deceitful to have…
Trackback by Deltoid — 4/20/2006 @ 12:19 pm
The latter preserves anonymity. The former doesn’t. Don’t say you’re into anonymity in a blog post about you outing an anonymous commenter.
Also, don’t trust what you read on the internet.
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 12:29 pm
P… A…T… T… E… R… I… C… O…
Registers Seismic Shift On LA TIMES Richter Scale! WOOT WOOT WOOT WOOT WOOT
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 4/20/2006 @ 12:31 pm
I just love Hiltzik’s spin-laden response. It was so predicatable. Shift the argument from his blatantly dishonest posts to the non-issue of anonymous posts. Patterico tried to head off that red herring, but apparently Hiltzik either failed to read that far or decided to ignore it. So Hiltzik’s response has nothing to do with Patterico’s complaint. But a response was made, I guess that’s all that matters.
Another classic example of liberal argument - mere distraction. If you don’t like the argument, just change the subject.
Comment by Amphipolis — 4/20/2006 @ 12:39 pm
That’s because in my example, both personas use pseudonyms. If you pull a Hiltzik and post some comments under your real names and others under a pseudonym designed to make it look like you’re another person, then you’re scarcely in a position to complain when someone exposes the fraud and the anonymity of your fake persona is compromised.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 12:39 pm
Jason Blair .. get to your laptop.
Comment by Neo — 4/20/2006 @ 12:41 pm
actus, the anonymity on this site is given to promote honest and open dialogue without having your name show up all over the internet. If someone abuses that anonymity and uses it nefariously to fool other people, there is no longer an honest and open dialogue and the webmaster must alert readers to the situation.
Comment by Anon — 4/20/2006 @ 12:47 pm
A picture that seems appropriate
Comment by Not that Francis guy someone else — 4/20/2006 @ 12:50 pm
Sure. And said person is not in a position to say they support anonymity when they’re breaking it.
Why? The idea of anonymity is that the source of a comment doesn’t matter and that it should be taken on its own merits. How can anyone be ‘fooled’ by an anynomous comment? I can see if he is impersonating another pseudonym — like if he were to leave comments under the name “patterico.”
But I don’t see the problem in someone having several online personas.
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 1:03 pm
Beautiful.
Now I’ll log in as 48 different people who’ll all agree with me.
Comment by HD Wanderer — 4/20/2006 @ 1:11 pm
Oh yeah? Then I’ll log in as 49, and win.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/20/2006 @ 1:12 pm
Mr. Patterico, I hope you will act responsibly.
Now that you OWN Hiltzik, please get this critter spayed. We don’t need any more feral sock puppets running about.
Comment by TakeFive — 4/20/2006 @ 1:12 pm
Actus, why bother trying to defend the indefensible? Hiltzik used to be a journalist. He presented a hoax as fact. It was petty, stupid, and pathetic, but a journalist who is known to make things up is not a journalist anymore. (Look up monkeyfishing sometime.)
Hiltzik, MikeKoshi, and Nofanofcablecos need to switch to fiction. Even if they do, I suggest they use a fourth name. The current ones don’t have good connotations.
Comment by Not Really Mikekoshi — 4/20/2006 @ 1:14 pm
those are the chances you take.
And X, as usual, is quick with the sharp reply.
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 1:14 pm
Well, number 1 because I see a guy outing someone and then claim they like anonymity. No, they dont.
And number 2, because its quite defensible. I have no idea who you people are. And that’s fine.
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 1:16 pm
I just want to say that I read that Rightwingsparkle blog and I..umm..I mean….she truly is fantastic!
And this is my totally objective opinion.
Comment by WingnutWoman — 4/20/2006 @ 1:18 pm
Wow.
This could be too good to be true, but there is a certain ‘Mike’ who leaves his turds all over conservative blogs (especially Ace of Spades and SondraK), usually ending posts with “You guys are stupid”, “Idiots”, or “You dolts”.
He claims to be in Southern California, living on or near the beach, and is a self-described former ’saloon’ owner who is fond of ‘cocktails’ and ‘headers’, and the owner of a labrador.
Regular posters at these sites seem to think that he often uses several different aliases in the same posts, to argue in support of himself.
He is especially hateful of the President, and conservatives in general.
Please, Patterico, throw your net out a little wider…
Comment by Uncle Jefe — 4/20/2006 @ 1:21 pm
ANOTHER EXCLUSIVE! A photo of a real, live Patterico commenter! (Courtesy Hiltzik’s “defense”)
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/04/20/proud-patterico-commenter/
Comment by Gaius Arbo — 4/20/2006 @ 1:25 pm
Clear across town I could hear the whoopin’ and hollerin’ and had to get over here to see what the fuss is about. And whoa! The whole tribe’s gathered–dancin’ ‘round the bonfire, high-fivin’ and back slappin’ each other. Patterico’s done a Woodward and Bernstein and nailed a President’s scalp…scratch that…a reporter’s scalp to the wall. Party hardy, boys and girls, tomorrow it’s back to work covering for the most lying, conniving Administration in the history of the United States.
Comment by Asinistra — 4/20/2006 @ 1:30 pm
Asinistra?? Is that you Mike??
Comment by Uncle Jefe — 4/20/2006 @ 1:32 pm
How can we be so sure the Times hasn’t published a Mikekoshi letter or two? Or that she hasn’t been a reliable source for a Hiltzik story??
Comment by hundi — 4/20/2006 @ 1:38 pm
Why is there no mention in this post of the many fine satire blogs (which may or may not be fans of cable companies) that are not commenting on this issue?
Comment by Juan from JuzzaDem — 4/20/2006 @ 1:40 pm
I, like the person who left comment #126, am curious about your reluctance to comment on satire blogs that are not commenting on this controversy.
Bravo, person who is apparently of Hispanic descent; bravo!
Comment by John from WuzzaDem — 4/20/2006 @ 1:44 pm
It’s pathetic for someone to have to defend their words in the guise of some other independent person. Sad and pathetic.
Comment by Amphipolis1 — 4/20/2006 @ 1:47 pm
I also agree with what the last commentor posted - he is the font of all wisdom and I worship every word he writes.
Comment by Amphipolis2 — 4/20/2006 @ 1:48 pm
That last commentor is right on target. I have always agreed with him, and I do now. Anyone with a different opinion is an idiot.
Comment by Amphipolis3 — 4/20/2006 @ 1:49 pm
Good catch Patterico, that’s why I call it LIE-beralism.
The left’s mendacity is legendary.. birds of a feather flock together, you know.
Cathy Seipp, who Michael Hiltzik lashed out at, caught Nikkie Finke, brokebrain blogger/lefty moonbat of LA Weekly (whose alter ego ::one of them:: is a lawyer) doing the same thing.
See Cathy Seipp’s World March 14, 2006.
http://cathyseipp.journalspace.com/?entryid=743
Comment by Sirc_Valence — 4/20/2006 @ 1:59 pm
Asinistra,Why would we want to cover for that administration?
It’s so ten years ago.
Comment by Nofanofasinistra — 4/20/2006 @ 2:07 pm
This really is too funny. We should all go comment on as many leftwing blogs as possible and then immediately comment again agreeing with the our first comment but under a different screen name.
btw, WingnutWoman and ConservativeBabe are very astute women!
Comment by Rightwingsparkle — 4/20/2006 @ 2:13 pm
Actus,
You are absolutely correct. Now that the whole world knows who Michael Hiltzig is and where he works. Now that this is out his life is literally in grave danger(is there any other kind). I hope you can live with yourself Patterico.
Comment by pepster — 4/20/2006 @ 2:23 pm
[...] Well this latest incident by Michael Hiltzik may top it. [...]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » A MSM Meltdown? — 4/20/2006 @ 2:37 pm
What danger?
Comment by actus — 4/20/2006 @ 2:47 pm
Patterico catches LA Times columnist using mulitple IDs
This is just incredible. I’d be doing it an injustice if I copied and pasted small snippets of what was said there regarding the apparent use of multiple IDs that Patterico has caught LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik using.
Having multiple I…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 4/20/2006 @ 2:55 pm
What’s all the fuss about? I often leave anonymous comments to myself on my own wonderful blog, commending my self-evident excellence and hoping to dupe others into my way of thinking. You all should come to my excellent blog and see how wonderful it is!!! I’ve forgotten the name, off hand, but just to a google search of “the bomb” and “really neat site” and stuff like that. I’m sure I’ll come up. Like probably first and stuff. So remember - for all your internet blogging needs, think, um, my site.
Yours Very Truely -
Annonimouse!!!!
Comment by Jack H — 4/20/2006 @ 3:10 pm
What Hiltzik has done is nothing new. this unpardonable interweb sin) has brought many an anonymous 16 year old to tears and shame. For a professional journalist to be caught red handed is an embarrassment to not only him but to his profession and his employer.
If indeed Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos are all one in the same, and he has pretended to be different people defending each other then the term “pulling a Hiltzik” will live long after his career is dead and forgotten.
Comment by The Ugly American — 4/20/2006 @ 3:21 pm
Dear Patterico,
Ha Ha. Thanks for the reminder about argument and evidence. Here I sat, slightly scattered dealing with multiple matter while also preparing for a mediation - then pow! read this post on my break and regained my evidentiary focus.
P.S. Californio is a kickass on that internut thingy. Hai!
Best regards, Californiokoshi
Comment by californio — 4/20/2006 @ 3:22 pm
Patterico:
I have just visited Mike’s blog and defense here:
http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/2006/04/anonymity_on_th.html#more
I would say that you have accomplished one other goal also. You have shamed him into not deleting the unfavorable comments. He has a mountain of ridicule there. That is a real win.
Comment by Bill Schumm — 4/20/2006 @ 3:22 pm
Bill, #140. I don’t think that he was doing that before, either. But I suspect that he blocks the IP’s so you don’t get a second comment in.
Comment by nk — 4/20/2006 @ 3:37 pm
Looks to me like he hasn’t let a new comment go up in four or five hours.
Comment by David Mastio — 4/20/2006 @ 3:55 pm
Michael Hiltzik’s big week in the blogosphere
Michael Hiltzik (pictured below but with the words “Independent Sources”) may be one of the most written about writers this week in the blogosphere. Independent Sources certainly contributed our part to his exposure having written several …
Trackback by Independent Sources — 4/20/2006 @ 3:56 pm
He only published one of my comments, the least damaging one.
Indeed, by publishing it out of order (because it depended on a previous comment to make sense) it doesn’t tend to make sense.
First, I posted this comment:
Then I posted this comment, which he allowed:
Somehow, he never got around to allowing the first comment and when I posted a third comment critical of him for not doing so, that never got through either.
Then he shut off commenting for no apparent reason, though my fantasy has him being called to the carpet by the LA Times.
Alas, it’s the LA Times so that remains nought but a whimsical notion!
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 3:57 pm
Mike Koshi must be Michael Hiltzik’s little friend and alter ego. Hiltzik might have been better off staying somewhere out on the foreign correspondent beat instead of having to come to Los Angeles and play with the big boys. It’s better for Michael Hiltzik to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open his mouth and prove it–or to let him have his little buddy Mike Koshi come out to play.
Comment by Mike Myers — 4/20/2006 @ 3:58 pm
[...] Now the fun has moved over to Patterico’s Pontifications where Patterico carefully outlines a detailed analysis of Hiltzik’s self-congratulatory comments left anonymously at Patterico’s and other blogs, Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos . [...]
Pingback by Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Michael Hiltzik’s big bad week in the blogosphere — 4/20/2006 @ 4:02 pm
Patrick, I couldn’t find an e-mail address for you, and I just wanted to make a quick typo note:
Based on the hyperlink, looks like that should be January 30, not 20.
Comment by Tim Jreacher — 4/20/2006 @ 4:02 pm
Is Times’ Hiltzik Faking Blog Comments?
Backed up to the wall by an always-critical Patrick “Patterico” Frey and seemingly nailed to it with IP-address evidence, Hiltzik actually confesses that he has posed as someone else so as to post positive comments about his own blog posts.
Then h…
Trackback by LAVoice.org — 4/20/2006 @ 4:03 pm
WOW.
Owned!!!
Nicely done, patrick.
Comment by Shawn — 4/20/2006 @ 4:04 pm
I now have a mental picture of “mikekoshi” looking like “Mini-Me” of AP fame, only with Hiltzik’s mug. …and “Say hello to my li’l friend!”
Comment by MikeH — 4/20/2006 @ 4:14 pm
Hiltzik’s blog is down! REPEAT! Hiltzik’s “blog” is down!
So much for the great experiment.
Comment by Arch Radish — 4/20/2006 @ 4:19 pm
They’ve suspended his blog:
Comment by ajf — 4/20/2006 @ 4:20 pm
Oh, I was wrong! (/right? whichever!)
The LA Times was talking their reporter to task.
The right thing to do. Surprising, but encouraging. Hard to criticize the LA Times for taking a stand on ethics.
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 4:21 pm
Its times like these that I’m SO proud to be a longtime Patterico reader and fan.
Comment by Susan — 4/20/2006 @ 4:27 pm
I don’t think his explanation went over too well with the LA Times board of editors.
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 4:31 pm
[...] The start of the firestorm can be found here: Three in one. [...]
Pingback by » Right Wing Nutjobs at it Again » The Redhawk Review » Blog Archive » — 4/20/2006 @ 4:35 pm
Absolutely, the right-wing nutjobs on the LA Times Editorial Board are choked.
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 4:39 pm
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Comment by Polybius — 4/20/2006 @ 4:47 pm
** DRUDGE has been notified. **
I just sent an e-mail urging that he check things out here. This should be posted at his site. We’ll wait and see.
Comment by Anonymous — 4/20/2006 @ 4:48 pm
GAME OVER
Comment by Bob Owens — 4/20/2006 @ 4:49 pm
Not the great Drudge? I’ve notified Kate — the finest Conservative or other blogger. I mean, you know if Canada’s in this, it’s gonna be BIG.
Humour, folks, humour…
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 4:50 pm
This post is here for one reason only… to close the HTML tag!
Comment by Chris from Victoria, BC — 4/20/2006 @ 4:51 pm
How about Hiltzikin? You know, mannequin, Hiltzikin… okay, maybe not.
Comment by Treach E. Rjim — 4/20/2006 @ 4:56 pm
** DRUDGE has been notified **
I for one can’t wait. Every letters section, I have to sift through so much slanted journalism… at least let the community have its say!
Maybe someone in house is writing the short-sentenced, neanderthal-style pro conservative letters. What a coincidence that the liberal oatmeal is always articulate, passionate and filled with potent factoids. The ratio appears to be 1 to 90, and I ain’t diggin’ it.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 4/20/2006 @ 5:01 pm
Rumpelhiltzkin
…”as I came to a high mountain at the end of Wilshire, where the fox and the hare bid each other good night, there I saw the LA Times newsroom, and in it a monitor was was glowing, and round about the glow quite a ridiculous little man was jumping, he hopped upon one leg, and shouted –
“Today I’ll post, to-morrow print,
the next I’ll have Hugh Hewitt’s head.
Ha! glad am I that no one knew
I’m Rumpelhiltzkin, or my job would be dead.”
You may imagine how glad Patterico was when he heard the name. And when soon afterwards the little man came in, and asked,
“Now, Patterico, what is my name?”
At first he said,
“Is your name Mikekoshi?”
” No.”
” Is your name nofanofcablecos?”
” No.”
” Perhaps your name is Rumpelhiltzkin?”
” The devil has told you that! The devil has told you that!” cried the little sour man, and in his anger he snapped his Pulitzer Prize and plunged his right foot so deep into the earth that his who