Can’t you simply ask Roy Rivenburg if that was him posting? He seems like an honest and straightforward guy, I’m sure he’ll be happy to answer the question, particularly if it’s you who’s asking it: has he ever made posts on web logs using pseudonyms, commenting about his own work as a reporter at the LA Times?

[Mmmm . . . I avoid such questions in the absence of any real evidence. I'll let you ask him. Let me know what he says. -- Patterico]

Looks like the LAT has another sock puppet on the staff. In 2005, Roy Rivenburg posted many times under pseudonyms when he was criticized by gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile for his article on gay marriage. A simple Google search of “Rivenburg” and “sock puppetry” yields several examples. He also posted book reviews of ‘Test of Courage’ under names other than his own.

Someone else has pointed this out here, but you’ve deleted Rivenburg’s name and banned the poster. As a prosecutor and licensed member of the bar I’d think you’re capable of being a bit more dispassionate when it comes to violations, whether of the law or of a newspaper’s policy. Or do you only favor enforcement when it serves your purposes and biases?

[I banned someone who made an accusation without even purporting to provide evidence. Since then, someone made the same accusation and at least tried to provide evidence. That person's comment stands and they are not banned. So save your crap about evenhandedness. As I prosecutor I am wary of accusations made without a shred of evidence. In the comment I allowed to stand, all the commenter did was provide a link to Atrios, who speculated that it might be Rivenburg because the comments came from an LAT computer. Flimsy! By that logic, masha and workingjournalist are Hiltzik. And your suggested Google search reveals nothing more. So I'll leave your post up but will note that your accusation is utterly lacking in evidence. What I find fascinating, and may follow up on, is that you appear to have made your comment from a Kinko's! You must be really scared of being found out! Now why would that be? -- Patterico]

“In each case, these 77 television stations actively disguised the sponsored content to make it appear to be their own reporting. In almost all cases, stations failed to balance the clients’ messages with independently-gathered footage or basic journalistic research. More than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety.”

http://prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary/

The Lancaster scribe was wrong, but managers often get by with far worse.

And if any facts are being misstated, it’s probably with a right wing slant.

Quinn … said … he began posting to “set the record straight” about topics he covered.

It looks like he was doing sock puppetry.