Patterico's Pontifications

4/23/2006

L.A. Times Characterization of Hiltzik’s Sock Puppetry Misses the Point Completely

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 9:51 am



Say it with me: It’s not the pseudonym! It’s the sock-puppetry!

It strikes me that it’s a very clever thing that the Los Angeles Times has done, defining Michael Hiltzik’s transgression as simply posting comments under a pseudonym. That, of course, is not why he is the laughingstock of much of the blogosphere, as I have made clear many times. Hiltzik is mocked, not for using a pseudonym, but because he used his pseudonyms dishonestly, as “sock puppets” who praised and defended him while pretending not to be him.

But his newspaper’s editors are doing a little pretending, too. They are pretending, as Hiltzik did in his initial defense of his sock-puppetry, that his real offense was simply using a pseudonym online. This definition of the transgression accomplishes several related goals for the newspaper.

It trivializes the offense. What’s the big deal about using a pseudonym?

It allows Hiltzik defenders to argue that his critics are hypocrites. After all, most everyone on the Internet does it. Why, even the guy who caught him does it — his real name is Patrick Frey, yet he calls himself Patterico!

And it allows the paper to maintain the pretense that it abides by standards of honesty and integrity that are greater than those observed by the rabble of the blogosphere. Hiltzik’s defenders claim that his only mistake was to adopt the loose practices of the blogosphere. Newspaper editors claim to be upset because, after all, the L.A. Times is better than that! It would never stoop to the standards of those bloggers!

It’s all a load of horse manure, yet many people are falling for it, large and small. For example, NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt’s show. From the transcript:

HH [Hugh Hewitt]: What do you make of Mr. Hiltzik’s behavior?

JR [Jay Rosen]: Well, I think that when you are a writer today online, and you write in your own name, you should do everything in your own name, and creeping around the web under anonymous handles is just bad behavior. It’s bad practice, and you shouldn’t do it. And he got caught.

HH: What should, if any, the punishment be of him?

JR: Oh, well, I don’t really recommend what punishment should be for journalists, but I think it would be very surprising to me if he kept any column, kept his job, kept his space at the L.A. Times. I would be surprised if they kept him on.

HH: Oh, really? You know, Patterico, who revealed it, is urging that he not be disciplined at all beyond the public embarrassment. Do you think the Times has to get rid of him?

JR: Well, the reason I say that, Hugh, is that they said in their announcement on the blog that he had violated Times policy.

HH: Oh, yeah. And have you read their code of ethics?

JR: I have not read this part of it, but they explained that…I would have the same rule, wouldn’t you? You can’t go around with any other name than your own name.

HH: Yes, what they actually said, it was very clever, Jay Rosen. They said his guilt was not revealing himself as a Times reporter when he engaged the public.

Hugh didn’t elaborate at that moment what was clever about it, but he has said it on other occasions. It was indeed clever, for the reasons I have stated.

By the way, Rosen is a blogger himself, with a well-respected blog called PressThink. Jay is left of center, but he is honest, savvy, and knowledgeable about media ethics issues. I actually considered sending Jay my post before publishing it to see what he thought, both about its importance and the way I expressed it. (Ultimately, having alluded to the story in comments on another blog, I felt a time pressure to put the case together quickly, and didn’t get around to it.)

Jay ought to understand the distinction between what Hiltzik did and simply using a pseudonym in a non-dishonest way. But if he does, he didn’t express that understanding in the interview with Hugh. If Jay has been misdirected by the paper’s characterization of Hiltzik’s actions (and I stress the word “if”), then I think a lot of other people will too.

[UPDATE: Jay says in the comments that he understands this perfectly well. My point wasn’t to assert that he didn’t. That’s why I said I stressed the word “if.’ My point was that Jay should know the difference, but said nothing about it in the interview. He says in comments that it’s because he wasn’t asked. I do see that I did imply that Jay “fell for it” in another section of the post. That was sloppy language. Apologies to Jay. — Ed.]

Take this lefty blogger. She quotes from Hiltzik’s dishonest defense, and says:

Later in the same post, Hiltzik notes that 230 of the 259 comments on one of Frey’s posts were pseudonymous. All of this appears to be true, and it’s very common for many people, including people I know, to post pseudonymous comments on this blog.

So why, given the accepted practice of assumed names on blogs, did the Times suspend Hiltzik? It somehow seems wrong and hasty and not in keeping with good journalism for the Times to so quickly shut down an otherwise solid writer’s blog. Plus, do bona fide journalists not have the right that every other writer on the Internet has – to post under a pseudonym?

If they don’t, they should. But they shouldn’t have the right to use those pseudonyms as a chorus of cheering sock puppets.

This critic misses the point as well.

What Hiltzik did — sock-puppetry — is something that no self-respecting blogger would ever do. Every blogger who took the time to read my post instantly “got it” — and knows that the above commenters on the Hiltzik situation are missing the point entirely.

I wonder if that’s what the paper’s editors want. I’d like to think not. I’d like to think that they understand exactly what was wrong about what Hiltzik did. But so far, they have given no indication of this.

I hope that, whatever the final resolution of this matter is, that the editors will issue a statement that shows they understand why Hiltzik’s actions were wrong. It’s not the pseudonym! It’s the sock-puppetry!

54 Responses to “L.A. Times Characterization of Hiltzik’s Sock Puppetry Misses the Point Completely”

  1. >>>Hiltzik defenders are missing the point entirely.

    Gee, considering how brilliant Liberals fancy themselves, they can be so utterly stupid when it’s convenient for them to be so.

    Carlos's sock puppet (98df3a)

  2. It’s a good little passive aggressive trick. The LA Times is so coy to tiptoe around the real issue. To acknowledge it in a misleading manner both covers their bases and fools anyone who happens to be arriving late to this little party.

    The blogs will always be two steps ahead of these tactics… keeping it real. Rutten and his band of truthkillers know this.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  3. Patterico, you are being too nuanced. Newspapers are black and white. Pseudonyms are either good or bad, regardless of how they are used.

    I do not use a pseudonym. I am (or was) a real city.

    Amphipolis (346a88)

  4. The Deliberately Obtuse vs the Brutally Obvious:

    No, no, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s not about sock puppetry at all, it’s really all about sex. Nothing but dirty, rotten, S-E-X. You perverts just don’t get it.

    Why can’t you keep you nose out of other people’s bed rooms, er…Oval Offices, er…cigar boxes, er…billing records, er…ChiCom campaign contributions, er…pardons for drug dealers, er…well, stuff that just doesn’t concern you.

    Everybody does it. Now, let’s all Move-on.

    Black Jack (7bbb5c)

  5. Hiltzik defenders are missing the point entirely.

    Heck, for all we know, sock puppetry is standard operating procedure at the Times. Maybe Hiltzik and Masha are just the tip of the iceberg.

    This could be another Gary Aldrich situation. The Left all screamed when Aldrich published Unlimited Access, and as it turned out, he didn’t know the half of it.

    Paul (c169e9)

  6. No, I belive that the LA Times knows just what it
    is doing, it has been that way since Hearst.
    Newspapers? HAH!
    Their day has come and gone.

    It would be best not to respond to them,
    just point out their faults.

    The question remains:
    Not that the dinosaur is dead, but how
    to burry it.

    StainlessSteelRat (016e23)

  7. They are missing the point on purpose. If they say something enough times, it becomes “true”. Just like when President Bush “lied” about WMDs.

    Maggie45 (3a5ee5)

  8. Newspapers are still doing okay in small towns, according to E&P. Exclusivity to local issues and events, etc.

    Internet is great for instantaneous headlines. I still enjoy newspapers for in-depth views and a variety of categories that meet my needs, as far as where I live. I always learn from opposing sources, even if I’m cursing and arguing at what they write!

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  9. How can you question their morals when it is past time for Hiltzik and the LA Times to get back to the business of saving the downtrodden American people from Halliburton! What type of people would try to stop them from making it a better world?

    Perfect Sense (024110)

  10. I’ve come to regret your choice of the “sock-puppetry” term as the term to hammer home your criticisms, Patterico. Your explanations of the true nature of Hiltzik’s offense have been spot-on, but I think that repetitious use of the shorthand signifier “sock-puppetry” then obscures the point. I think it fails to adequately convey the juvenile dishonesty of what Hiltzik has been doing, and thus fails to elicit from more casual readers the disdain and ridicule Hiltzik and his TIMES justifiers deserve.

    Levans (d38a46)

  11. Is it possible that we, because we are capable of making the clear distinctions involved, assume that the apologists are capable as well? Maybe they aren’t.

    Joe Miller (10e788)

  12. Levans:

    I think it’s a good term. But you are free to suggest a different one.

    Patterico (156eed)

  13. Funny, I emailed the guy at the Post-Chronicle you referenced a few hours ago, making exactly the same point you did. You could not have been more clear.

    I suspect some of the obtuseness at the LAT is more than just denial, it’s an enforced cluelessness about the Internet. Blogs are still this strange thing “out there”, just like the entire Internet is to some.

    More reporters of all outlets should blog, just to get a handle on what’s it’s really like. And if they make some mistakes, that should be okay, too. You make mistakes when learning. Better that than remaining trapped inside the bubble.

    Hugh Hewitt’s post of the LA Times policy on blogging has a revealing section that reveals this timidity:

    “The emergence of blogs has created potential quandaries for staff members who want to express themselves through that medium. No matter how careful Times bloggers might be to distinguish their personal work from their professional affiliation with the paper, outsiders are likely to see them as intertwined. As a result, any staff member who seeks to create a personal blog must clear it with a supervisor; approval will be granted only if the proposed blog meets the paper’s journalistic standards. When approval is granted, staff members should take care not to write anything in their blogs that would not be acceptable in the newspaper. Staff members should observe the same principle when contributing to blogs other than their own.”

    The message being sent is that those blogs are dangerous things that can get you into trouble, so you should stay away. And Hiltzik’s smashup will only encourage that thinking.

    The Times policy on blogs would be better if it were revised to simply state (1) Make it clear your blog represents your personal views (2) Use your common sense, and (3) Correct your mistakes.

    Oh, and (4), try and learn something from those who take the trouble to read your blog.

    Bradley (e619fc)

  14. I disagree that the Times is trying to obfuscate. They have a clear rule; he violated it. The sanction hasn’t been determined.

    I agree that the sock-puppetry (a great term, IMO) is a major factor in determining Hilzik’s degree of malfeasance, but the Times shut down his blog almost immediately, stated that Hiltzik committed an ethical violation, and did so in a brief and clear manner.

    The fact that internet-savvy folks might write it differently, or that a longer explanation would be more complete, does not mean they are “pretending” anything, and I think attacking the Times on that is unwarranted and misguided.

    Patterico hit a home run here in catching Hiltzik out; it was some nice detective work. Now is the time to congratulate the Times on not ignoring the violation of its policies to help a long-time, award-winning journalist.

    Hiltzik responded with bluster (though not denials) and he looks foolish. I expect the Times is trying to figure out how loose this cannon is before figuring out what to do.

    Let’s act like sensible people and give them a moment to do so.

    –JRM

    JRM (5e00de)

  15. Sorry, Pat, you’re way off base on this one. I didn’t say Hiltzik’s “only mistake was to adopt the loose practices of the blogosphere,” or anything remotely like that. You shouldn’t suggest that I did. And Hewitt didn’t ask me about what his fake names were saying. If he had, I would have said his sock puppetry was also unconscionable, because it is. Disturbing evidence of what’s going on inside his mind, too.

    I just disagree with you about the fake names, as did Steve Lovelady. You ought to have the maturity to recognize a different point of view, especially when I’m being tougher than you are on Hiltzik.

    I think his FIRST crime was was using fake names online when you’re a columnist for the LA Times writing under your real name. That, to me, is a violation of trustworthy practice and possible grounds for dismissal even before you get to the sock puppetry.

    I’m entitled to hold that view even if you choose to go easier on him. And holding that view doesn’t mean I fail to grasp the distinction between using a fake name and saying nice things about yourself. I grasp it very well. You just fail to credit views other than your own.

    I might add that the post he wrote “defending” himself against your discovery of the IP addresses was even worse, in my opinion. It was beyond disingenuous; it was desperate, and basically one big lie.

    Clear enough?

    Jay Rosen (c7e206)

  16. I made this remark on my posting of this incident regarding your comments:

    I have to toally agree with you…but only to the point of mockery as you suggest. I mean, the way I see it, if you can’t get a back-and-forth debate by presenting your position, then faking a debate is indeed sleazy.

    This is partly the result of a boring blog. Many of the so-called blogs you find in newspapers are very milktoast with their content. In this regard it’s no surprise that Hiltzik is a good reporter and perhaps overly trained at J-school. He wondered why this alone didn’t suffice to generate interest on the blog. It didn’t. I honestly believe that a lot of today’s new reporters would be shocked to find out that virtually nobody reads them. With a blog you find out if anyone is interested real FAST. Max Headroom style.

    That said, my post was mostly to promote the notion that blogs in newspapers are a farce to begin with. This, to me, is the overlooked factor.

    http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=5118

    John C. Dvorak (6b2a01)

  17. Jay,

    I did say in the post that I stressed that “if” you were getting misdirected – and I stressed “if” — then others would too. But, though I didn’t mean to be expressly saying that you didn’t “get it,” I see that I did indeed strongly imply that, through sloppy language leading into the quotes from the interview. I have updated the post to reflect your comment, and I apologize to you.

    I do wish that you’d mentioned the sock puppetry in the interview. To me, that’s the whole point. I recognize that, to you and others, the pseudonymity is an issue, too. It’s not that I fail to “credit” your views along those lines — it’s just that I disagree, strongly. There’s a difference.

    I agree that the worst thing he did was that ridiculous post defending his actions.

    I really did think about sending you that post beforehand. I respect your opinions on these matters a great deal. Sorry if that didn’t come across in the post; I meant for it to.

    Patterico (156eed)

  18. Oh..and the one thing everyone is overlooking regarding sock-puppetry: what if you’re actually a schizophrenic or a mad man? I sure a lot of bloggers fall into that category.

    Multiple-personality disorder, anyone?

    John C. Dvorak (6b2a01)

  19. I think Rosen’s point is fair: if you are a writer today online, and you write in your own name, then you should do everything else (or at least everything else likely to dovetail with it) in your own name.

    The same basic principle holds for bloggers using pseudonyms, I think (though I suspect this is where Jay and I may part ways). If I’m going to call myself Xrlq on my own blog, I should post all my comments under that pseudonym, as well. I shouldn’t start posting comments under a different pseudonym on your blog, or even under my real name on someone else’s, unless there’s a good reason to.

    Xrlq (061a15)

  20. I always use different pseudonyms in different places, if they are topically different. I don’t think the knitting forum needs to know I am also on a diabetes support mailing list (yes, I made those up). Again, anonymity is not only acceptable but wise. Sock-puppetry is fraud.

    Of course, I’m just a garden variety commenter. I’m not trying to be any kind of player.

    S. Weasel (e16cf7)

  21. Another question for you, Jay. You say:

    I think his FIRST crime was was using fake names online when you’re a columnist for the LA Times writing under your real name. That, to me, is a violation of trustworthy practice and possible grounds for dismissal even before you get to the sock puppetry.

    Okay, but was it his WORST crime?

    Which was worse? Pseudonymity, which many on the Internet practice? Or sock-puppetry, which almost nobody does?

    I maintain that it’s the sock puppetry. And if I’m right, then you should have mentioned it when Hugh asked what you made of his behavior.

    Otherwise, it’s like someone getting caught peeing in public and then socking the police officer who catches him. If someone asks you: should such a person be fired? the answer wouldn’t be: yes, because he peed in public.

    Patterico (156eed)

  22. mob violence against straw men

    They ignore Hiltzig’s real offense, sock puppetry, and focus on something superficially similar, anonymity. This is polemical mob violence. They are raising the straw man, not merely to knock it down, but to lynch it.

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  23. The same basic principle holds for bloggers using pseudonyms, I think (though I suspect this is where Jay and I may part ways). If Im going to call myself Xrlq on my own blog, I should post all my comments under that pseudonym, as well. I shouldnt start posting comments under a different pseudonym on your blog, or even under my real name on someone elses, unless theres a good reason to.

    Sounds like a silly rule. Its also bad security.

    If you only have 1 persona online, then the exposure in one small forum will have repercussions in all of your online presence. If instead you compartmentalize your online life, then you don’t have the security risk.

    But its main sillyness is that it misses a big point of anonymity: to escape the consequences of something being tied to you. Who then is left entitled to anonymity?

    People move in different social circles, say things to different crowds. I use language in front of my peers that I don’t use in front of my bosses. Online that’s not possible — google finds all. Its only possible if I take on different personas online.

    [Yup. It’s an interesting challenge when you realize that absolutely everything you say can be read by absolutely anyone in the world. — P]

    actus (6234ee)

  24. Do we know if LA Times has been engaged in meat puppetry too? I’m not sure what Masha’s motivation was, but it’s possible LA Times has been meat-puppetting Patterico.

    From here: A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  25. Jay,

    I’m also wondering if you’re planning to do a post about Hiltzik. It would be interesting to get a post-length take from you on the whole affair.

    Patterico (156eed)

  26. I accept your apology, Pat. Thank you.

    To me the worst thing was the post just before he was suspended, which was a desperate series of knowing untruths, a lie, the second worse infraction was the sock puppetry, and the third was using fake names.

    As for what I should have mentioned with Hugh, have you ever done a live TV or radio interview and said everything you wanted to say? I haven’t.

    John Dvorak is one of the most amusing characters in the blosophere. He can’t stop writing about blogging, but what he always wants to tell us is how lame, unimportant, silly, and over-hyped it is. He really, really, really, really, really wants us to know that blogging is dumb, and a waste of time. Meanwhile, he blogs. That’s amusing, no?

    Jay Rosen (c7e206)

  27. No, I’m not planning to do a post about Hiltzik. It doesn’t have enough in it for me. Are you planning to do a post about Scott McClellan and the wisdom of having him up there for three years?

    Jay Rosen (c7e206)

  28. Why should I? You already did it. 🙂

    Patterico (156eed)

  29. To me the worst thing was the post just before he was suspended, which was a desperate series of knowing untruths, a lie, the second worse infraction was the sock puppetry, and the third was using fake names.

    Wow. We’re in total and complete agreement there.

    Patterico (156eed)

  30. Why should you? Because to my knowledge no blogger or columnist sympathetic to the Bush agenda has had the balls to say that McClellan was a disaster for that agenda: completely inept at explaining Bush’s policies, embarrassingly bad at everything a press secretary has to do, projecting every day to the entire world a pathetic image of sad sackery– and with the presidential seal right there under his quacking face!

    Jay Rosen (c7e206)

  31. Our esteemed host has it entirely right, from the position of a blogger (that the offense is multiple name cheering), but completely wrong from the point of view of The Los Angeles Times.

    For the Times to take Patterico’s position on this issue, they would have to criticize what was said, and you’re not going to get an institution that requires freedom of the press to do that.

    Our ever-forgiving host has also said that Mr Hiltzik ought not to be punished (at least not seriously) by the Times for his transgressions, precisely because our host is viewing this from the perspective of a blogger.

    And that’s why I have said that Patterico is wrong, and that Mr Hiltzik’s actions constitute a firing offense; to look at it from the perspective of the newspaper, it is hugely serious, an attack on the honesty the paper purports to have.

    As you quoted journalism professor Jay Rosen:

    I think it would be very surprising to me if he kept any column, kept his job, kept his space at the L.A. Times. I would be surprised if they kept him on.

    Dr. Rosen is looking at it from the perspective of a major newspaper.

    Our host added, in comment #23:

    I think his FIRST crime was was using fake names online when you’re a columnist for the LA Times writing under your real name. That, to me, is a violation of trustworthy practice and possible grounds for dismissal even before you get to the sock puppetry. (Jay Rosen)

    Okay, but was it his WORST crime?

    Which was worse? Pseudonymity, which many on the Internet practice? Or sock-puppetry, which almost nobody does?

    Obviously, from the perspective of the Times, it was the use of multiple pseudonyms, and it will always be the use of multiple pseudonyms.

    Dana (a90377)

  32. Actus wrote:

    The same basic principle holds for bloggers using pseudonyms, I think (though I suspect this is where Jay and I may part ways). If Im going to call myself Xrlq on my own blog, I should post all my comments under that pseudonym, as well. I shouldnt start posting comments under a different pseudonym on your blog, or even under my real name on someone elses, unless theres a good reason to. (Mr. X)

    Sounds like a silly rule. Its also bad security.

    If you only have 1 persona online, then the exposure in one small forum will have repercussions in all of your online presence. If instead you compartmentalize your online life, then you don’t have the security risk.

    But its main sillyness is that it misses a big point of anonymity: to escape the consequences of something being tied to you. Who then is left entitled to anonymity?

    People move in different social circles, say things to different crowds. I use language in front of my peers that I don’t use in front of my bosses. Online that’s not possible — google finds all. Its only possible if I take on different personas online.

    Yet you use the same pseudonym both on Protein Wisdom and here. 🙂

    Actus, I’m not certain that I can see much logic in your statements; to try to project different persona on different sites is to manufacture a personality that is not really you on every site you visit, perhaps saving one. Unless you happen to have multiple personality disorder, you are not only being dishonest with those who read what you write, but you are being dishonest with yourself. That can’t be good.

    Nor am I particularly attracted to the security issue. Maybe if your pseudonym was outed, and you had a real and reasonable fear that commenting openly could somehow jeopardize your family or career, i could see it. But even that, it seems to me, is lame: if you have a real and reasonable fear that blogging or commenting on other people’s sites could lead to personal or family harm, then you shouldn’t be commenting at all.

    Dana (a90377)

  33. Jay Rosen:

    Why should you? Because to my knowledge no blogger or columnist sympathetic to the Bush agenda has had the balls to say that McClellan was a disaster for that agenda: completely inept at explaining Bushs policies, embarrassingly bad at everything a press secretary has to do, projecting every day to the entire world a pathetic image of sad sackery and with the presidential seal right there under his quacking face!

    Dibs.

    [And don’t miss the first comment to Xrlq’s post. Are we ballsy or what? — P]

    Xrlq (061a15)

  34. Unless you happen to have multiple personality disorder, you are not only being dishonest with those who read what you write, but you are being dishonest with yourself. That can’t be good

    I tried to give an example to show how its not dishonest to myself, but actuall just like myself. I do act different around my peers than around my bossess. Different around family than around professional contacts. But on the internet, If i want to be different things to different people — which we are in real life — then I have to have different personas.

    But even that, it seems to me, is lame: if you have a real and reasonable fear that blogging or commenting on other people’s sites could lead to personal or family harm, then you shouldn’t be commenting at all.

    And the entire point of anonymity is to overcome that barrier to free exchange.

    actus (6234ee)

  35. Seriously, McClellan was pretty lame. But then, I am rarely impressed with the communications abilities of Republicans.

    Patterico (156eed)

  36. Let me defend the LA Times for focusing on the anonymity instead of the sock-puppetry or at least make a stab at doing some mind reading since I’ve been an editor at a large paper.

    Focusing on the anonymity lets the LAT editors make a clean decision without any complicating details of dealing with the IP addresses, analyzing which of the posts were garden variety anonymous posting and which were unethical sock-puppetry. That’s not just convenient for the LAT editors in dealing with this fracas, but in heading off future controversy.

    LA Times employees will be themselves on the Internet – PERIOD. The LA Times doesn’t care about sock puppetry, meat puppetry or any other variation of the arcane rules of being honest while anonymous.

    David Mastio (6ad4b5)

  37. It sure does allow them to claim that people like me are hypocrites and that we have lower standards. That’s mighty convenient. I disagree with JRM that their explanation so far is adequate, for that reason: they get to beat their chests and boast that they have higher standards than bloggers like myself.

    Patterico (156eed)

  38. David, that sounds to me like the same reason schools adopt zero tolerance policies: it lets them make difficult decisions without actually having to think about stuff. And they get to pretend it’s the extra-super triple-dog ethical way to behave. (Not directed at you personally, mind).

    S. Weasel (e16cf7)

  39. Jay Rosen wrote:

    I might add that the post he wrote “defending” himself against your discovery of the IP addresses was even worse, in my opinion. It was beyond disingenuous; it was desperate, and basically one big lie.

    Jay:
    You are thinking and analyzing. Welcome to the Dark Side.

    Perfect Sense (024110)

  40. Anyone who wants anonymity, and is stupid, won’t find it on the internet. They’ll need to stick to snail mail and redirecting letters through foreign remailing services.

    Purple Avenger (22bdfb)

  41. Oh..and the one thing everyone is overlooking regarding sock-puppetry: what if you’re actually a schizophrenic or a mad man? I sure a lot of bloggers fall into that category.

    I not sure. I think that a silly thing to say.

    Jim Treacher (f69e1b)

  42. I’m with actus on this, with one caveat. Using the same moniker on the same site is a best practice. OK, two caveats. Acting differently on different sites is perfectly acceptable, although pretending to be a right winger on one site and a left winger on another is bad behavior.

    I’ve seen and experienced enough online stalking crossing into real-world retaliation that I don’t think the average citizen has any reponsibility to give up anonymity just to express an opinion.

    MayBee (c5700f)

  43. So, if I post a comment, then post another agreeing with the first under a different name, then post yet again complaining about people who object to the first two posts using yet another name , that’s all good with the LAT?

    Letters column here I come!

    Gaius Arbo (01c9ab)

  44. To Jay Rosen:
    I’ve tried to leave a message on your site praising your interview with HH. I thought the two of you brought out the best in each other and that you should have a weekly show. Unfortunately, I receive an error message at PressThink. I’ll post my praise here instead.

    MayBee (c5700f)

  45. #18 – John C. Dvorak – schizophrenia is not a “split” or “multiple” personality disorder, and never has been.

    Caz (975608)

  46. [And don’t miss the first comment to Xrlq’s post. Are we ballsy or what? — P]

    Damned straight. Hell, I have a really low voice, was called “3-balls Xrlq” in high school, and now live within 30 min. of Ballsville. How many bloggers can claim that? Huh?

    Xrlq (061a15)

  47. MayBee #42, I certainly see your point, and don’t disagree with anyone else’s choice on the matter, however, as far as I’m concerned I will always use my name when posting. I’m generally pretty careful about what I say and how I say it.

    I really wouldn’t say things all that much differently if we were speaking face to face, though I freely admit I’m sometimes tempted, particularly when interacting with intentionally obtuse individuals.

    I have lately, however, considered posting under ruhtrAyrraHkoshi. What do you think? It has a certain ring to it, doesn’t it?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  48. Patterico wrote:

    It sure does allow them to claim that people like me are hypocrites and that we have lower standards. That’s mighty convenient. I disagree with JRM that their explanation so far is adequate, for that reason: they get to beat their chests and boast that they have higher standards than bloggers like myself.

    How? You are publicly known, so there is no anonymity in your postings. Some of the people who comment here use pseudonyms, but exactly the same thing is true on the L A Times blog.

    Now, maybe they will claim what you said (although, by now, they ought to have learned a lesson about pissing off Patterico!), but at least the logic you claimed they would use fails.

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  49. Actus wrote:

    I tried to give an example to show how its not dishonest to myself, but actuall just like myself. I do act different around my peers than around my bossess. Different around family than around professional contacts. But on the internet, If i want to be different things to different people — which we are in real life — then I have to have different personas.

    Well, I act somewhat differently around my wife and kids than the guys at work, but that is because the relationships are different, not because I am a different person. Is it possible that you are confusing appropriate conduct based upon the situation with “different personas?”

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  50. Is it possible that you are confusing appropriate conduct based upon the situation with “different personas?”

    No. I’m saying that you have to have different personas on the web in order to keep the worlds apart. Google sees all. So someone searching for the name you use in the knitting forum might find your postings on the diabetes forum. And you may want to keep those separate. The only way to do so is to have a different name on each forum you want separate.

    actus (6234ee)

  51. Levans – “sock puppetry” seems to be a standard term for the type of behavior Hiltzik was engaging in. It’s certainly the term the editors of Kuro5hin use for the identical behavior among some of its less-well behaved denizens.

    aphrael (6b0647)

  52. Dana – I use the ‘aphrael’ persona almost everywhere, unless I am explicitly asked not to or the site is sufficiently hostile to psuedonyms that I feel compelled to use my given name. But on one of the sites that I frequent, which I know that some of my coworkers read, I have a seperate account which I have used for the exclusive purpose of discussing plans to change careers, which is something I want to be able to talk to some people on that site about without tipping off my employer (about plans which were, when I started doing it, more than a year away).

    I would hold it to be dishonest if I were, under that other name, to comment about ‘aphrael’ in any way … but without the option to use a different name, I can’t reasonably keep things that I don’t want to be public from being public.

    aphrael (6b0647)

  53. […] Kurtz isn’t the only mainstream media reporter to cover the story, either. Articles have appeared in Reuters, the AP, and the New York Times. The L.A. Times has kept largely mum about it except for columnist Tim Rutten, to whom Patterico responded here. And yet, despite all the coverage, not only have most media accounts continued to misrepresent why Hiltzik’s actions were objectionable, but only one reporter has even attempted to contact Patterico about the story. Fancy that. […]

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


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1055 secs.