Patterico's Pontifications

4/20/2006

Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Hiltzik — Patterico @ 12:22 am

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.

266 Responses to “Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos”

  1. 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.

    Hoystory (15d1aa)

  2. Patterico:

    How’s come you get to be in all these exciting blogfeuds, and we never get anything like that over at Big Lizards Leg Buzzards?

    Ddyfad

    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  3. [...] 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. [...]

    Hoystory » Blog Archive » They’re called sock puppets (322185)

  4. 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…

    L'Ombre de l'Olivier (59ce3a)

  5. 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.

    Bill Schumm (33ab73)

  6. John Lott has endured much ridicule for posing on the Internet as a person other than himself, and justly so.

    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.

    Is this any different?

    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.

    Xrlq (84266a)

  7. 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

    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  8. Busted! Woohoo! This is good…

    Justin Levine (d8da01)

  9. 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.

    Arch Radish (1e9714)

  10. 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.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  11. #8 Dwilkers-

    You nailed it. Obviously you’ve thought this through and understand the issue.

    Wdilkers (a1687a)

  12. #9 Wdilkers-

    Thanks, I agree I nailed it. Enjoyed your comment, you are really smart.

    Wdilkers (a1687a)

  13. 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. :)

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  14. 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.

    Tim Lambert (04d02b)

  15. 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?! ;-)

    jim (6482d8)

  16. 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.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  17. 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

    See Dubya (9769bd)

  18. “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.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  19. 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.

    See Dubya (9769bd)

  20. 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.

    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?

    Josh Adams (cd28a8)

  21. Brilliant. Chalk this up as further proof that any time a journalist gets in an argument with a practicing lawyer, bet on the lawyer.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  22. 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!!!!!!

    megapotamus (e55e3d)

  23. Dynamite, Patterico. Remind me never to get on your bad side.

    Btw, Allahpundit is a genius.

    Allahpunditkoshi (4ba106)

  24. 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.

    Hiawatha Bray (db8654)

  25. 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.

    Patterico (156eed)

  26. 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.

    Dusty (af3a10)

  27. 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.

    Patterico (156eed)

  28. 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.

    Lambert spoke truthfully, and you claim it’s a non-issue he’s made hay over.

    “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?”

    ..and was at Yale in between. He was also super good looking! *fawn*

    Would that have helped?

    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.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  29. 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.

    See Dubya (9769bd)

  30. It may be an issue for his paper. Are there ever any “letters to the editor” referring to him?

    nk (ca8012)

  31. 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.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  32. 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.

    Bradley (e619fc)

  33. 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:

    “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael A. Hiltzik, who writes the twice-weekly “Golden State” column most Mondays and Thursdays, has been a staff member of the Los Angeles Times for more than 20 years. In that time he has worked as a financial and political writer, as a foreign correspondent serving in Africa and Russia, and as a technology and science writer and editor. He is the author of the book Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age, published to widespread critical acclaim in 1999 by HarperCollins.

    Hiltzik has won numerous awards for excellence in reporting, including a Silver Gavel from the American Bar Association and a citation from the Overseas Press Club for coverage of East Africa.”

    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.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  34. What? A winner of the prestigious Liberal Medal of Honor Pulitzer 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.

    Kevin (f452bd)

  35. 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?

    jim (6482d8)

  36. [...] 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. [...]

    The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » I’m Spartacus! (80002b)

  37. 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

    Amy Alkon (5f1284)

  38. 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?

    Mark Poling (06c16b)

  39. 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.

    Gabriel Chapman (6d7447)

  40. 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).

    TNugent (6128b4)

  41. 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.”

    It’s one thing to simply have a pseudonym. That’s fine, several of our authors do. If people are aware that it’s a construct, then so be it.

    Some such folks use multiple psuedonyms. I find it a bit immature since I’m a “stand by your words” guy at heart, but generally I consider it harmless. As long as the technique isn’t being used in a deceptive way, then no harm no foul as long as you’re 100% pseudonymous across the board.

    We get to a blurrier line if, for instance, someone with a public identity needs an pseudonym in order to comment on issues unrelated to that identity. Like the rehab example. Or if Gene Simmons wanted to come blog here as ‘Lyck I. Tup’ to avoid the fan clutter, then fine (Gene – call me!).

    But what we have here is someone whose professional and public identity is tied up in words and opinions, submitting opinions about criticisms that touch directly on his work under that public identity, under a false name. He is doing this to escape accountability, and also to “puff up” the appearance of support for his position.

    That, my friends, is pure lying in public. It’s the sort of thing that, if the LA Times was a real newspaper, should get him fired.

    If he’ll lie about something so fundamental in public, he’ll lie about other things too.

    Joe Katzman (d122c5)

  42. 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.

    nofanofmikekoshi (b210bb)

  43. 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…

    Pluto (fcbef1)

  44. 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 …

    Chris At Home (95d7b7)

  45. 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.

    Pluto (fcbef1)

  46. 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:

    Otherwise, he’s telling all his site visitors and commenters that they visit and post at their peril; if he doesn’t like what they say, he’ll invade their privacy (and concoct a “principled” pretext for doing so).

    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.

    Mark Poling (06c16b)

  47. Looks like this is an unhinged mediocrats version of being an army of one in cyberspace.

    Shorse (b4a9bf)

  48. 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.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  49. #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.

    brett (e403c6)

  50. 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?

    TallDave (869c63)

  51. I totally agree with the above poster, who is not me.

    TallDave2 (869c63)

  52. I think the two comments above make an excellent point. Good job, guys!

    TallDave3 (869c63)

  53. Hitzik has essentially admitted to the sock puppetry, even while doing a stupendous job of missing the point:

    Frey evidently pored through the IP addresses of comments on his blog to discover that sometimes I commented under my own name, and sometimes under a pseudonym. He noticed that this is a pseudonym I’ve used on other occasions. He pats himself on the back (so to speak) for his brilliant sleuthing.

    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.

    Check your IP addresses further. Are you sure this guy isn’t m. croche, too?

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  54. 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.

    Cathysushi (17eb94)

  55. 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.

    TallDave4 (869c63)

  56. 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.

    Allahpunditkoshi (4ba106)

  57. 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?

    Bobby (df25e0)

  58. 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.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  59. 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.

    Mike K (529717)

  60. I know this because Hiltzik knows this.

    Not Really Mikekoshi (06c16b)

  61. TallDave4

    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.

    Amen to that. Oh, BTW, Xlrq is a genius.

    nofanoftimlambert (f52b4f)

  62. 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!

    notterriblyfondofdebbieschlusseleither (f52b4f)

  63. I think Hiltzik has found a way to reverse the Dog Trainer’s declining ciruclation rate–just count each subscriber 3 times.

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  64. 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.

    Warner Todd Huston (790648)

  65. 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.

    TheTree (b94b82)

  66. 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…

    nofanofmikekoshi (b210bb)

  67. 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

    Totally Not Iowahawk (64a94e)

  68. 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…

    OKIE on the LAM - In LA (e2cef7)

  69. Patterico – I love the fact that Sidious/Palpatine calls you a racist in his response. How utterly predictable. Last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  70. 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…

    bains (b7cdc0)

  71. 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.

    Mikekoshi (5d90a2)

  72. Maybe Hiltzik has a son who is a sumo wrestler…then we wouldn’t have a takedown, would we?

    PC14 (98b75e)

  73. 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.

    anotherbains (b7cdc0)

  74. 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…

    protein wisdom (c0db44)

  75. [...] 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. [...]

    FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Patterico “OUTS” Los Angeles Times Blogger Michael Hiltzik (baa0b4)

  76. 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.

    Dean Ayer (6b282d)

  77. Nice work.

    Hiltzik et al = pwn3d.

    Geek, Esq. (9405d1)

  78. Patterico,

    Impressive post for someone who is not a professionally trained journalist.:)

    Made my day.

    Kevin

    Kevin Whalen (2c9197)

  79. 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.

    ;-)

    ConservativeBabe (39dfa1)

  80. 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

    JRM (de6363)

  81. It’s not the crime, it’is the coverup

    James Balmer (210389)

  82. 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

    Blue Crab Boulevard (a177fd)

  83. 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?

    Bradley J. Fikes (87a640)

  84. 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.

    Black Jack (d18fff)

  85. [...] 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. [...]

    Chapomatic » “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” (936c38)

  86. [...] 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. [...]

    Rathergate.com » A Columnist’s Pseudonym (e203ab)

  87. [...] 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. [...]

    Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog) » A Columnist’s Pseudonym (b0dbcd)

  88. 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?

    Papertiger (17a97f)

  89. 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…

    PCD (bb5853)

  90. 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.

    Anon (c44a3c)

  91. 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

    JSF (6182ba)

  92. MSMers and Their Imaginary Friends

    It’s tough being a leftist. And with the ongoing layoffs of the declining mainstream media, it’s probably getting kind of lonely. Patterico tells the amusing and well-documented story of LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik and his imaginary friends. Sad, but …

    Pursuing Holiness (087c0d)

  93. Fake but accurate postings. Hiltzik’s personal extension of the Dan RaTHer /CBS journalistic ethics.

    Perfect Sense (024110)

  94. Here’s the thing. I am actually a strong defender of people’s right to comment anonymously, or pseudonymously.

    Not really.

    But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.

    That’s what anonymity is about.

    Sure. You’re in the outing game. Just don’t pretend you’re not.

    actus (ebc508)

  95. [...] 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? [...]

    Cold Fury » Blog Archive » Bringin’ the funny (6f4592)

  96. Great job Patterico. If this was a fight it would’ve been stopped by now.

    DaveT (499907)

  97. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

    Wait, let me create an imaginary friend to praise my brilliant post…

    Oops, he can’t stop laughing either!

    Trudger (5d1b43)

  98. 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…

    Bogus Gold (fa8fba)

  99. Actus:

    But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.

    That’s what anonymity is about.

    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.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  100. 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.

    pepster (7804ef)

  101. 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.

    C Student (59bfb8)

  102. 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…

    Deltoid (a83cc5)

  103. , if “outing” you altogether isn’t fair game, “outing” the fact that Alias #1 and Alias #2 relate to the same person, certainly is.

    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.

    actus (ebc508)

  104. P… A…T… T… E… R… I… C… O…

    Registers Seismic Shift On LA TIMES Richter Scale! WOOT WOOT WOOT WOOT WOOT

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  105. 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.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  106. The latter preserves anonymity. The former doesn’t.

    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.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  107. Jason Blair .. get to your laptop.

    Neo (cba5df)

  108. 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.

    Anon (c44a3c)

  109. 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.

    Sure. And said person is not in a position to say they support anonymity when they’re breaking it.

    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.

    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.

    actus (ebc508)

  110. Beautiful.

    Now I’ll log in as 48 different people who’ll all agree with me.

    HD Wanderer (dc60da)

  111. Oh yeah? Then I’ll log in as 49, and win.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  112. 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.

    TakeFive (2bf7bd)

  113. 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.

    Not Really Mikekoshi (06c16b)

  114. Now I’ll log in as 48 different people who’ll all agree with me.

    those are the chances you take.

    Oh yeah? Then I’ll log in as 49, and win.

    And X, as usual, is quick with the sharp reply.

    actus (ebc508)

  115. Actus, why bother trying to defend the indefensible?

    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.

    actus (ebc508)

  116. 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.

    ;-)

    WingnutWoman (39dfa1)

  117. 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…

    Uncle Jefe (e3c5a3)

  118. ANOTHER EXCLUSIVE! A photo of a real, live Patterico commenter! (Courtesy Hiltzik’s “defense”)

    http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/04/20/proud-patterico-commenter/

    Gaius Arbo (78f19c)

  119. 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.

    Asinistra (c493b3)

  120. Asinistra?? Is that you Mike??

    Uncle Jefe (e3c5a3)

  121. 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??

    hundi (d1ce38)

  122. 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?

    Juan from JuzzaDem (dfd3ae)

  123. 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!

    John from WuzzaDem (dfd3ae)

  124. It’s pathetic for someone to have to defend their words in the guise of some other independent person. Sad and pathetic.

    Amphipolis1 (fdbc48)

  125. I also agree with what the last commentor posted – he is the font of all wisdom and I worship every word he writes.

    Amphipolis2 (fdbc48)

  126. 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.

    Amphipolis3 (fdbc48)

  127. 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

    Sirc_Valence (400cee)

  128. Asinistra,Why would we want to cover for that administration?
    It’s so ten years ago.

    Nofanofasinistra (8a7cc9)

  129. 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!

    Rightwingsparkle (39dfa1)

  130. 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.

    pepster (7804ef)

  131. [...] Well this latest incident by Michael Hiltzik may top it. [...]

    The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » A MSM Meltdown? (4e8dcb)

  132. Now that this is out his life is literally in grave danger(is there any other kind).

    What danger?

    actus (ebc508)

  133. 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…

    Sister Toldjah (3e6668)

  134. 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!!!!

    Jack H (333728)

  135. 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.

    The Ugly American (25e0bf)

  136. 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

    californio (5cdb2c)

  137. 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.

    Bill Schumm (33ab73)

  138. 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.

    nk (06f5d0)

  139. Looks to me like he hasn’t let a new comment go up in four or five hours.

    David Mastio (6ad4b5)

  140. 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 …

    Independent Sources (dd41d6)

  141. 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:

    Anonyminity is one thing. Lying and deception is another.

    For you to write comments using fake identities in support of yourself and then engage in debates with your “supporters” while selectively pruning your blog of a percentage of comments that don’t support your line is nothing more than a cheap dishonest propoganda effort.

    Posted by: Chris Dollis

    Then I posted this comment, which he allowed:

    Here here, Chris Dollis! I couldn’t have put it better myself. And I checked out your blog. What a great concept. And you’re really cute, too.

    Blue is your colour, sir.

    Posted by: Sally Sue Ericksen

    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!

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  142. 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.

    Mike Myers (3a4363)

  143. [...] 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 . [...]

    Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Michael Hiltzik’s big bad week in the blogosphere (dd41d6)

  144. Patrick, I couldn’t find an e-mail address for you, and I just wanted to make a quick typo note:

    Mikekoshi posted this comment using the “69″ IP address on January 20 at 5:20 p.m.

    Based on the hyperlink, looks like that should be January 30, not 20.

    Tim Jreacher (f69e1b)

  145. 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…

    LAVoice.org (3dd6c7)

  146. WOW.

    Owned!!!

    Nicely done, patrick.

    Shawn (9a998a)

  147. 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!”

    MikeH (3e17f9)

  148. Hiltzik’s blog is down! REPEAT! Hiltzik’s “blog” is down!

    So much for the great experiment.

    Arch Radish (1e9714)

  149. They’ve suspended his blog:

    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 policy, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.

    ajf (00cafe)

  150. 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.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  151. Its times like these that I’m SO proud to be a longtime Patterico reader and fan.

    Susan (fc1e4a)

  152. I don’t think his explanation went over too well with the LA Times board of editors.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  153. [...] The start of the firestorm can be found here: Three in one. [...]

    » Right Wing Nutjobs at it Again » The Redhawk Review » Blog Archive » (648c38)

  154. Absolutely, the right-wing nutjobs on the LA Times Editorial Board are choked.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  155. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

    Polybius (e56744)

  156. ** 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.

    Anonymous (a9ae2c)

  157. GAME OVER

    Notice from the Editors

    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 policy, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.

    Bob Owens (a89626)

  158. 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…

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  159. This post is here for one reason only… to close the HTML tag!

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  160. The term “sock-puppet” should be phased out and replaced by the more apropos “Hiltzik-puppet”.

    How about Hiltzikin? You know, mannequin, Hiltzikin… okay, maybe not.

    Treach E. Rjim (f69e1b)

  161. ** 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.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  162. 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 whole leg went in, and then in rage he pulled at his left leg so hard with both hands that he tore himself in two.

    The End

    Totally Not Iowahawk (64a94e)

  163. This just in …

    Notice from the Editors

    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 policy, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.

    Evil Pundit (1772ee)

  164. Wow. This has been an interesting day…

    Gaius Arbo (2656a4)

  165. And now his blog has totally disappeared. And if it should come back later, I’ve got proof.

    Bob Owens (a89626)

  166. Great job in nailing John Lott.

    Webster Hubble Telescope (5b8bac)

  167. I’ve got proof too.

    If anyone wants them (I’ll email them to you) I’ve got screenshots of the LA Times Golden State blog (editors’ statement plus the complete response by Michael Hiltzek titled “On Anonymity in Blogland”) as well as a screenshot of the blog after it was pulled down.

    Just in case they try to pull it.

    To contact me, visit my blog and leave a comment or scroll down to the footer and email me at the address that you see there!

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  168. Attempting to close boldface tag. Let’s see if this works.

    no name (ab73a1)

  169. Again again again .

    no name (ab73a1)

  170. Patterico, that was an ass-kicking so perfect that it is spherical!

    Great work.

    Toby Petzold (c44e3e)

  171. I wonder if he sends himself flowers on Valentine’s Day.

    Jackie (42bed3)

  172. Seeing that this started with this bozo doing an article about blogging reminded me of this story i saw on Fark months ago, about a Ron Burgundyesque reporter doing a story on blogging. I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to find it, so please take a look. Its well worth it, especially the comments section

    http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1720659

    Kevin M (211cdb)

  173. #173 with three different names on the card

    Papertiger (71415b)

  174. I admit it. I posted all the comments here in support of my friend, myself, Patrick Frey. He’s a swell guy.

    Hey, where’s a mirror?

    I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggonit, people like me.

    I’m good enough….

    Isn’t it nice having friends who support you?!

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  175. After reading Hiltzik’s own response trying to defend his actions over at his blog – it finally became clear to me why he should be banished from the blogoshpere (symbolically at least): The man has utter contempt for the blog medium itself – even though he has relectantly found it necessary to engage with it.

    His attitude is essentially, “Blogs simply allow right wing nuts to be anonymous and dishonest in attacking the traditional media that I work for, so I will simply use the medium to beat them at their own game, rather than try and use it for reasoned debate.”

    People like him just have no clue about what this medium is about, what it portends, and why integrity is the only currency you have in it.

    Pathetic….

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  176. [...] On one hand, I was very disappointed when I read Hiltzik’s response to my post exposing his mutually admiring sock puppet identities. I had hoped that he would make a forthright admission of what he had done, show an understanding of why it was wrong, and pledge not to do it again. Instead, he erected and demolished a strawman argument, pretending that my complaint was that he had used a pseudonym to comment on my blog: [Patterico] 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.” [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » (421107)

  177. [...] I, for one, know better than to grapple with that pugnacious pontificator Patterico, but the L.A. Times never learns. Earlier, Patterico spotted a cowardly move by Michael Hiltzik of the L.A. Times-sponsored Golden State Blog, who was engaging in a shell game with his readers by posting under his own name and two pseudonyms – sometimes using the pseudonyms to provide ‘independent’ backup to his own ideas. [...]

    Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Behold The Power of Patterico (1b383c)

  178. [...] — Update: Read the comments by “nofanofcablecos” — aka Michael Hiltzik — on this post to see what got Patterico curious and Hiltzik’s blog suspended from the LAT. [...]

    Independent Sources » Blog Archive » The LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik: A Self-Contained Guano Ecosystem (dd41d6)

  179. Give Yourself A Big Pat On The Back

    Just don’t get caught. You’re the man! No, you’re the man! That’s gonna leave a mark

    WuzzaDem (72c8fd)

  180. My comment on Mr Hiltzik’s site:

    Mr Hiltzik wrote:

    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. This is amusing, because most of the comments posted on his website are anonymous or pseudonymous. “Patterico” is itself a pseudonym for an Assistant Los Angeles District Attorney named Patrick Frey. Anonymity for commenters is a feature of his blog, as it is of mine. It’s a feature that he can withdraw from his public any time he wishes. He has chosen to do that in one case only, and we might properly ask why. The answer is that he’s ticked off that someone would disagree with him.

    Yes, “Patterico” is a pseudonym, but it’s hardly anonymous: the identity of Patterico is well known.

    Further, as far as anyone can tell, Mr Frey doesn’t make a habit of going onto websites and posting under two or three different anonymous pseudonyms, and post comments praising the logic of his other pseudonyms.

    Whatever the merits of your arguments vis a vis Patterico’s, you have just cheapened them all by not being honest about yourself — until you got caught.

    — To add to that comment here, Mr Hiltzik engaged in a battle of wits with someone wittier than he — and lost.

    Dana (9f37aa)

  181. One point for our esteemed host: The Liberal Avenger wrote me, asking me if I had an idiot twin brother using my computer, because someone clearly not me had sent some comments he found offensive — and it showed the same IP address I used.

    Upon investigating, I found that seven of the commenters on my site had the exact same IP address, all because they were going through AOL, which has groups of IP addresses that it assigns to outgoings. Since Mr Hiltzik/Koshi were using Adelphia, I don’t know if such could have been a problem there, and Mr Hiltzik has admitted his actions (though not his guilt), but it’s a good thing Mr Frey had more than just IP addresses as evidence, because those alone would have not been sufficient.

    Dana (9f37aa)

  182. Gee, I hope Mr. Hiltzik gets off with a warning. What he did was silly and thoughtless, but it shouldn’t ruin a guy’s whole career. I was having fun reading about all this when it was just a silly kerfuffle, but I don’t want it to turn into a tragedy. Just tell him to cut it out, and leave it at that.

    Hiawatha Bray (dd6743)

  183. As I said this morning in one of the early comments, I wholeheartedly agree that he should not be fired.

    Patterico (156eed)

  184. I cannot and do not agree with you that he should of necessity not be fired.

    The LA Times is two things:

    1.) A business — it’s goal as such is to make money and its reputation is a valuable asset; when you damage that, you bite the hand that feeds you

    2.) A professional organization with well established standards — ethics violations, which were clearly spelled out in their ethics guidelines, which then form part of his employment contract, are a key part of their moral responsibility to readers; the Times has an interest in protecting that

    Mr. Hiltzik’s transgressions and his disingenous deflection/attack/defense were serious and the LA Times would be right to take it seriously. As was his habit of pruning readers’ comments, which linked to well-sourced information sources that challenged or refuted his positions.

    What decision they make should be a balance of the damage already done to them, their assessment of their reporters ethics and any further damage he may do, and his value in the future.

    I respect your opinion, however, it’s certainly not your place to restrain the LA Times’ hand. They are the injured party more than anyone, except, perhaps, their readers.

    Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2)

  185. [...] Patterico’s post unmasking Michael Hiltzik’s deceptive comments at Patterico’s Pontifications — and here at Independent Sources — mentioned an earlier incident where Hiltzik assumed someone else’s identity. Here’s more: Reporter Disciplined for Reading His Co-workers’ Electronic Mail The New York Times December 6, 1993, Monday, Late Edition – Final Section B; Page 9; Column 5; National Desk By CALVIN SIMS, Special to The New York Times DATELINE: LOS ANGELES [...]

    Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Michael Hiltzik’s Other User ID’s (dd41d6)

  186. The most pathetic blog post ever written.

    Is right here, but don't start there.  You have to read the background post here first.  It's long, but hopefully not too inside baseball to pick up on.

    OK, now you're ready for the most pathetic blog post ever written. …

    The Unabrewer (57c1a8)

  187. Firing Offense? Depends on your POV. If I ran a newspaper, credibility would be my stock-in-trade. If I EVER found that one of my writing employees had a dishonest streak, including the prevarications listed above, cheating at cards, shoplifting, etc., he’d be out the door with a public announcement of why I done it. Running a newspaper isn’t like being a used car salesman. But I guess this would be OK where he works.

    toolittle toolate (d2fcd1)

  188. [...] A blog by a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist from the Los Angeles Times has been suspended due to ethical violations.  Apparently he defended his own columns and posts with pseudonyms like “mikekoshi.”  Patterico, the Los Angeles blogger and county prosecutor found this out by noting that the IP addresses of Hiltzik and “mikekoshi” were the same.  Read more about it. « Librarian “Investigated” for Suggesting Conservative Books [...]

    Common Sense Journal » Blog Archive » L.A. Times Columnist Michael Hiltzik Uses Fake Names in Blog (e97c83)

  189. I think it should be a firing offense, if it is framed correctly. Hiltzik should not be fired, or even seriously disciplined, solely for using pseudonyms while addressing the public. He should be disciplined for doing so in a manner designed to mislead, and fired for doing so on a blog owned and operated by the paper.

    Failing that, he should be fired for being an arrogant jerk who routinely insults his opponents simply for disagreeing, can’t hold a serious debate on the issues, and generally makes the paper look bad. Unless he has pictures of Tribune Co. execs in compromising positions, I can’t see any reason why that company would want to retain him.

    Xrlq (f2a50e)

  190. Me, Myself, and I – The Blog Version

    Patterico exposes LA Times Blogger Michael Hiltzik’s penchant for sock puppetry.

    Is an L.A. Time…

    The Queen of All Evil (f03b36)

  191. I’d rather NOT fire Hiltzik and just use his continued employment as an excuse to bring the entire LA Times into continuing question.

    When they publish their subscription numbers, we simply ask, “Yes, but how many of those readers are REAL and how many are pseudonyms?” When they base a report on “anonymous sources,” we insist that they clarify that these are “REAL anonymous sources who do not work for the LA Times.”

    I don’t think sock puppetry should be a firing offense. But I don’t mind the thought of the LA Times wearing an albatross around their collective necks for a while.

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  192. As far as anonymous sources (especially now), think of it this way. What did the LA Times writer say when asked to defend his anonymous source? “Of course it’s credible. Some of my best friends are anonymous sources.”

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  193. [...] Patrick Frey, the blogger at Patterico, is the person who exposed this reporter/blogger. Read this post in which he exposes the LA Times writer for who he is. [...]

    Expose the Left » LA Times Suspends Blogger (0ade1b)

  194. [...] Opps. The term ’sock puppet’ is an early internet term that refers to people that post or comment about their work or themselves using a different name.  Apparently Michael Hiltzik had a couple of identities he used to talk about himself and his work in the third person at various blogs.  Patterico’s Pontifications figured it out and wrote a lengthy post exposing Hiltzik as other commenters. [...]

    LA Times suspends blog at Bene Diction Blogs On (cf7b4c)

  195. Strictly speaking, his is a nom de emprunte, or an assumed name, not really a nom de plume, as his purpose clearly seems to have been deception, not by any stretch employment as a literary device. The immediate attack on Patterico was, in my mind, a negation of any ability to mitigate his offenses of the LA Times Code of Ethics — see, Hugh Hewitt’s post here, which may now require them to more than just suspend him as they evaluate the damage. And, it was an open invitation to continuing ridicule.

    As in the old joke, today is truly Hiltzik’s “turn in the barrel.”

    Trochilos (9f37aa)

  196. Getting caught with your pants down

    Michael Hiltzik of Golden State has been commenting on other blogs anonymously. That in and of itself is not a big deal, but he’s been doing it so he can support himself (such as writing an anonymous comment that says, “I like Mike!”).

    Severe Writer's Block (59ce3a)

  197. [...] My take on LA Times reporter/blogger Michael Hiltzik’s use of pseudonyms to comment on blogs in defense of his real self is that this is more than catching Hiltzik doing something silly and schizo. [...]

    BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The first layer of transprency: Identity (3ab038)

  198. [...] Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos (Patterico, Patterico’s Rants) [...]

    Pseudonymity outbreak roundup | Bark at the Hole (df874c)

  199. [...] Given Hiltzik’s flippant response to my post, he evidently thought the same thing I did: this will soon pass. But he and I were wrong, and Marc was right. [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Hiltzik Story Hitting More Mainstream Press Outlets (421107)

  200. What can I say that hasn’t been said.

    I will however voice my opinion that integrity does have meaning. Truth, whether a person likes it or not, cannot change into a lie nor can a lie be changed into the truth.

    prying1 (36f056)

  201. [...] The alarm went off, and I hit the snooze button. The dream appeared to pick up where it left off, with the Ooga-Boogans whisking away that disgusting dish and handing me a laptop with WiFi instead. The Internet connection worked remarkably well for a remote location in deepest, darkest Africa (or wherever the hell Ooga-Booga Land was, as I never got to see it on a map), so I headed on over to one of my favorite web sites, Glennerico’s Groovy Insights. The proprietors of the site, Glenn Frey and his sister Amber, had just exposed some knucklehead journalist at the Compton Chronicle who was lying through his teeth, pretending to be multiple people, and falsely accusing his opponents of everything under the sun while using a pseudonym. In response, the Chronicle suspended the knucklead in question for using a pseudonym. The alarm went off again, and I dragged myself out of bed and headed off to work, wondering what on earth the first half of this dream could have had to do with the second. Probably nothing, just one of those random dreams that jumps around randomly from subject to subject, I s’pose. [...]

    damnum absque injuria » Strange Dreams (38c04c)

  202. [...] Jim Treacher recently made up received the following e-mail regarding the Hiltzik affair. Jim says the e-mail came from someone claiming to be “Puce.” But using expert forensic techniques, including a comparison of the e-mail’s viewpoint and writing style to those of known Times employees, I have conclusively established that the e-mail came from a staff writer for The Los Angeles Times: Hallo DUMERICA! stupid patrico, leaf a loan Mr Hizlik NOTHANG WRONG OF SOCK IF USE AGANST BUSK!!! CLICK [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Jim Treacher Gets E-Mail from L.A. Times Staffer Regarding Hiltzik (421107)

  203. Focus on the MSM, not so much on Hiltzik. This scandal results from the MSM Culture of Ventriloquism.

    salt1907 (d4ad5c)

  204. [...] Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos 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 (tags: hitzik mikekoshi fake bad blog) [...]

    dan-leonard.com/dan.licio.us » The law: a warning for bloggers (dfe6f3)

  205. [...] To be sure, Hiltzik’s apparent behavior was unethical, but not in the way the L.A. Times says.  The problem was that, as exhaustively documented by “Patterico’s Pontifications,” the conservative blog that unmasked the Hiltzik pseudonyms, he was using pseudonyms deceptively.  They were “sock puppets” to defend arguments he made in his blog.  Hiltzik even pointed readers of his blog to the pseudonymous comments he made elsewhere and he plainly suggested that they indicated a groundswell of support where none existed. [...]

    Info/Law » Use and abuse of anonymous blogging (1e4734)

  206. [...] Last Thursday, Patterico dropped this on Hiltzik and the blogosphere. I won’t recap it; read it in its entirety. If you don’t know what a “sock puppet” is (the Internet version, I mean), Wikipedia will explain. [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Radio Alert: Patterico To Discuss Hiltzik on “Hoist The Black Flag” (3ca10e)

  207. Three in One: Michael Hiltzik, Mikekoshi, and Nofanofcablecos

    i’ve seen people sent to prison on a *LOT* less evidence!!! Great job, and i picked up on it from “Hot Air”…

    KarmiCommunist (766920)

  208. [...] In his post last week exposing the Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik as a self promoting sock pupeteer, Patterico noted that “Mikekoshi,” one of Hiltzik’s presumed aliases, has commented at Kevin Drum’s blog at the Washington Monthly. [...]

    Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Another Brick In The Wall … (dd41d6)

  209. [...] Long story short, Patterico writes a post criticizing Hiltzik. A guy named “Mikekoshi” comes to Hiltzik’s defense. Patterico notices that the IP addresses for Mikekoshi and Hiltzik are the same. A little research discovers messages in which Hiltzik refers to himself as Mikekoshi and a link to a mailing list, with Hiltzik listed as Mikekoshi. The problem is, when Mikekoshi (who is Hiltzik) talks about Hiltzik, it is in the third person. This is intentionally deceiving the readers, an act which Frey refers to as “sock-puppeting”. Patterico makes the info public and Hiltzik tries to defend himself by putting more spin on it than a Levitron top. [...]

    Shoot a Liberal » Blog Archive » Fun with the AP: How to Get Suspended From the LA Times (516dab)

  210. Blogwars…How utterly quaint. Illegal Conduct? Admittedly No. Self Agrandizing…Admittedly Yes.

    Something that was simply done by no less than 4 bloggers in the thread themselves…Some more times than not, and though admittedly a “sparkling hottie” I quickly bored of the actions.

    I am not defending the reporter in any way, nor being critical of him. I just wish I had not wasted my time w/ reading the blog entries & comments…..For it was a huge waste. Just another Con/Lib fight that reminds me of Yahoo Newsboard Threads in tone.

    And I thought Bloggers were smarter than that. Alas, they are all one in the same.

    NotMikeAndNonyaBidness (050520)

  211. Aren’t there any like real criminals to prosecute in LA or anything?

    Your city downtown was awash yesterday in Hundreds of thousands of Criminal ILLEGAL ALIENS PROTESTING in the open (like it isn’t awash in illegals employed, housed, and conducting criminal business everyday), and here you sit blogging on your thumbs Mr. Rightest LA Asst. Prosecutor. Gotta just love stupid Republicans.

    Congrat’s….You took down one of LA’s biggest criminals (now just a few more pats on your back by your minions are in order)….The 1 Lib media news persona left.

    Turning back to the FAUX Propaganda/CNN wars now….I wonder what O’Dildo & Druggie Lush Rimbaugh are up to today.

    BTW, who’s your next target? CNN’s Lou Dobbs perhaps? PWNED

    NotMikeAndNonyaBidness (050520)

  212. [...] It will be interesting to see if Lapdogs has any legs and whether the mainstream media gets credited with an assist or sent to the penalty box. But then the MSM has lost as much credibility as the current administration has. Funny how that has coincided. [...]

    transcendental floss » Condemnation of the Mainstream Media (d55f62)

  213. [...] Difference 3: he considers this interchange with readers valuable: “(I) was hoping to put a selection of the 100+ emails I’ve received, lots with really interesting ideas, online — but sadly I haven’t had the time.” The last time we heard from an employee of the LAT, he was calling us “stupid” (albeit pseudonymously!). [...]

    Independent Sources » Blog Archive » Lessons For The Los Angeles Times From A Newspaper Website 6,000 Miles Away (dd41d6)

  214. As a retired LA cop and private eye, KUDOS! to Patterico for exposing a small part of Hilzik’s fraud. This is a good piece of investigative work that presents evidence in a way that journalists are supposed to.

    No wonder LA Times has no credibility – they’re only as good as their writers…

    Clark

    Clark Baker (700d84)

  215. [...] Kudos to Patterico who has exposed now-suspended LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik as a fraud. Hiltzik’s laughable defense is posted here. [...]

    California Conservative » LA Times Suspends Columnist (520ef7)

  216. I don’t think Hilzik’s case is even one of the worst. Do you have a any idea of how many people pretend to be other than they to reach their goals?

    Robert Bohm (115515)

  217. That’s strange what the LA Times is doing about the case. They’s suspended his blog, not Hiltzig!

    Sandy (115515)

  218. [...] Michael Hiltzik earns a mention in the Wikipedia entry for “sock puppet”: “Sock Puppet” is also an internet/weblog term for an anonymous alias duplicitously used in the comment section by someone who is better known by another name. For example, L.A. Times Columnist Michael Hiltzik came under fire in April 2006 when it was revealed that he was anonymously posting under the “sock puppet” name of “Mikekoshi”, and possibly “Nofanofcablecos”, to attack those critical of his writings.[2] He did this both on the blogs of his critics, and even on his own blog in response to hostile commenters. [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Hiltzik Makes Wikipedia “Sock Puppet” Entry (421107)

  219. [...] While the New York Times hides its could-be-influential Opinionator blog behind a firewall and the Los Angeles Times has retreated in wake of its Wikitorial and Michael Hitzlik fiascos, the Post continues to solidify its place, as Jay Rosen proposed, that it is the best newspaper in the country. [...]

    You Heard It Here In The 12th Comment at Blog P.I. (beta) (c73bc9)

  220. [...] Or…well, I just can’t think of another explanation that makes any sense. Greenwald is always badgering everyone else to be honest and forthright. Surely he’s not a dishonest hack dumb enough to think he can spread sock puppets all across the blogs of some of the sharpest conservatives around (one of whom busted a real live LA Times columnist’s sock puppetry) and get away with it. [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Glenn Greenwald Hiltzik? (d4224a)

  221. Good job and funny. But wow, you guys all have the TIME for this?

    Tim McPike (754e4f)

  222. Tim, you dolt. It’s part of the self-correcting nature of the Net! Good job and funny.

    NotTimMcPike

    Tim McPike (754e4f)

  223. [...] 6. Michael Hiltzik (2006). After months of sparring with Baquet bete noire Patterico, LA Times blogger/Pulitzer-winner Hiltzik calls up comment-section reinforcements in the form of himself posting under other names. Dick factor: Hiltzik was suspended by the paper in 1993 for hacking into his co-workers’ e-mails accounts. A work emergency? Nope. He was “nosy and curious,” according to a colleague. Degree of difficulty: IPs, screencaps, and timestamps. Difficulty is/was inversely proportional to diligence. Body count: Hiltzik’s blog was shut down, he was suspended without pay, and ultimately banished to the sports section — thus proving that, coupled with his little snooping problem, there’s really no way to get fired from the Times. Blog triumphalism quotient: Surprisingly low. Style points: Hiltzik once compared right-wing criticism of the Times to Stalinist show trials. Overall: He wasn’t a politician, he wasn’t a news executive, he was just a dick prone to pettiness. It’s a close call vis-a-vis Domenech, but sock-puppetry is, or should be, a venial sin. Plagiarism is mortal. 5.0. [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Greenwald’s sock puppets: The worst blog scandal ever? (d4224a)

  224. [...] It’s been a bumper week for post-Hiltzik sock puppetry. First a number of remarkably similar comments praising Glenn Greenwald on various blogs were discovered to have come from Glenn Greenwald’s IP address, and now this. [...]

    Sock Puppet Theater at Blog P.I. (beta) (c73bc9)

  225. [...] I started reading Patterico more or less regularly at about the time he broke the Hiltzik story. People who are hoping to shape the debate cannot be allowed to do so unfairly by going on somebody’s blog and lashing them under a fake name, then going back to their own blog and exclaiming, “Hey! So-and-so’s getting their ass handed to them by a commenter!” meaning themselves. By the same token, using fake names to inflate the number of your admirers shakes human nature into wondering, “Is this a crowd I should line up with? After all this guy seems to have a lot of supporters.” It’s dishonest. It’s a disservice to readers on any side of any issue, who form their opinions in part based on the past record of the person giving the analysis. It’s sad and pathetic, too. It should stop. [...]

    Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Great Sock Puppets in History (6acf84)

  226. Hi, nice site!
    good
    [url]http://phentermine.d-daypills.com/[/url] Warm regards Miranda!

    Miranda (ab6326)

  227. Regards by Very well job here with that website! Congratulations, I love it very much. I really appreciate your work here.
    http://phentermineaad.blogspot.com/
    [url]http://phentermineaad.blogspot.com/[/url] Warm regards Jan!

    Jan (34172d)

  228. Very good site! I like it! I just wanted to pass a note to let you know what a great job you have done with this site. Thanks!
    http://phentermineaad.blogspot.com/
    [url]http://phentermineaad.blogspot.com/[/url] Warm regards Tom Green!

    Tom Green (111574)

  229. [...] I have another “important subtext” for you: that is not true. Hiltzik’s column was suspended just after I revealed his sock-puppetry, and never appeared again. That’s something you already know, if you read (and trust) New Media — like the blog you’re reading right now, which reported the discontinuation of Hiltzik’s column here, here, and here. [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » On Trusting Big Media Over New Media (421107)

  230. [...] As Blog P.I. has noted before, it’s been a banner year for sock puppets already — Michael “Mikekoshi” Hitzlik, Glenn “Ellison” Greenwald, even Jason “George Gooding” Leopold. As in the case of Greenwald, hubris played a big factor in the un-socking. For both writers, the temptation to praise oneself in a manner even one’s biggest fans are unlikely to do was insurmountable; this hubris drives the similar impulse to pour self-generated adulation into one’s own Wikipedia entry. Had Siegel (or his rumored accomplice) just toned it down, Sprezzatura might still be antagonizing Siegel’s antagonists. And whereas the semi-retired Greenwald is unfireable, Siegel like Hitzlik before him is (or was) eminently vulnerable. [...]

    A Flock of Siegels, or, Don’t Cross The Streams at Blog P.I. (beta) (c73bc9)

  231. “中国望远镜网”专业提供望远镜行业最新资讯!

    望远镜 (abb082)

  232. “投影机查询”专业提供最新投影机报价!

    投影机 (01c15d)

  233. 望远镜:

    投影机查询”专业提供最新投影机报价!

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Xrlq (562997)

  234. Xrlq, they place that comment because it’s unlikely to actually get removed because it doesn’t “look” like spam. But it is. Just a link back to their crummy site that I would never spend even one of someone else’s nickels on. Heck, I wouldn’t even spend one of yours.

    ;-)

    Christoph (9824e6)

  235. What? I thought they were real people expressing real opinions! I’m shocked, shocked.

    Anyway, they’re both harmless spam (read: useless to the spammer) now.

    Xrlq (562997)

  236. Man, that’s just relentless. But, case well made.
    -Italy Dude

    [Thanks for the compliment -- but not the spam, which I have zapped. -- P]

    magicmikey (467311)

  237. [...] Pattericos Pontifications Three in One: Michael Hiltzik …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 … [...]

    News and Resources » Concert by South Korean pop star Rain canceled in Los Angeles … (074ac8)

  238. [...] also mention Hiltzik: In April 2006, The Los Angeles Times pulled Michael A. Hiltzik, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, [...]

    Sockpuppets in the NYT [Dan Collins] (e95a11)

  239. [...] 88 AUTHOR: admin CATEGORY: Daily News TRACKBACK: Trackback UTC: 2007-09-16T23:15:42-14400 Pattericos Pontifications Three in One: Michael Hiltzik …Mikekoshi is also a fan of the Los Angeles Times, and often rushes to defend the paper when I attack [...]

    News and Resources (074ac8)

  240. test

    voiceofreason (be1ec0)

  241. [...] Pattericos Pontifications Three in One: Michael Hiltzik …Find shopping sales and deals on groceries, clothing, cameras and more at stores in the Los Angeles area. Serving LA, Orange county, the Valley and Ventura … [...]

    News Resources » Blog Archive » Pattericos Pontifications Three in One: Michael Hiltzik … (074ac8)

  242. [...] Pattericos Pontifications Three in One: Michael Hiltzik …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 … [...]

    A great Resource Directory » Blog Archive » Los Angeles Times Pressmens 20 Year Club (074ac8)

  243. Goodness, there appears to be something wrong with the Internet, where nasties can stomp around causing all sorts of trouble. That’s an eye-opener. Next thing you know, we’ll have a bad attitude toward Nigerians and Ukrainian Internet sweat shops.

    A Key (206bae)

  244. Dear Friends,

    Most fashionable Replica Watches of Rolex, Cartier, Gucci,…nearly 40 top brands and 5000 different replica watches!

    Now selling from $129 in our online store with surprised gifts for free!

    Please refer to: http://www.replicaseller.com

    Our e-mail: replicaseller@hotmail.com

    Best price, High quality and Reliable service!!

    replica (bbc6be)

  245. 什麼是風險? 談Risk Servers includes all the advanced Risk Measurements, Risk of Loss, Credit Exposure

    Compute Market Risk Online (2e96fc)

  246. [...] would be particularly sensitive to this after the cases of Lee Siegal of the New Republic and Michael Hiltzik of the LA [...]

    BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The ethic of identity (f55714)

  247. nice to visit this site.

    Aryan (8e1447)

  248. [...] would be particularly sensitive to this after the cases of Lee Siegal of the New Republic and Michael Hiltzik of the LA [...]

    Jane Hamsher: Mayhill Fowler and the Sock Puppetry of Politico | NewsMeToday (f7ae5e)

  249. bid for position directory…

    One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing…

    bid for position directory (7b6986)

  250. What a great article!

    Wise Golden (aaa842)

  251. Wow Wise Golden — what a smart thing to say!

    Someone other than Wise Golden (aaa842)

  252. Your site- patterico.com is amazing site, respect, webmaster. But look at this [url=http://reminderroeb.150m.com/index.html] state electric water heater [/url]

    stateelectricwaterheatersrar (f62125)

  253. [...] – and sometimes lengthy – expose of exactly what you’re saying, and to whom.  One blogger, Patterico,  who suspected a fellow blogger, an LA-Times journalist Michael Hiltzik, of using several aliases [...]

    Sock Puppets: On the internet, my own best friend « Nicole Scaro - Digital Literacy (ea1fd5)

  254. [...] Sock puppeteer Michael Hiltzik got his “business” column back last year. This year, the column continued to be mostly leftist political claptrap as opposed to “business.” I called this repeat phenomenon “giving readers the business.” (Apologies to Wally Cleaver.) [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32)

  255. [...] Michael Hiltzik praising himself under assumed names on various web sites.  As a result of my post, the editor took away Hiltzik’s column, explaining that he couldn’t have a dishonest [...]

    » Had Enough of the Arrogance? Welcome to Big Journalism - Big Journalism (d59464)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6663 secs.