Remember the big flap over former L.A. Times editorial page editor Andres Martinez? As you may remember, the paper publicly wrung its hands over the supposedly terrible, awful perception of undue influence — caused by the fact that Martinez’s main squeeze was tangentially connected with a producer that Martinez wanted to make editor-for-a-day.

Anyway, weren’t they going to do a report about that? Hang on while I Google around . . .

[Googles.]

Why, yes. They were!

Back in March, the L.A. Times reported that publisher David Hiller

appointed The Times’ reader’s representative, Jamie Gold, to determine whether personal or professional connections improperly influenced previous content in the editorial pages. […]

Reader’s representative Gold said she would begin her review of past opinion-editorial decisions immediately. She said she was not sure how long her investigation would take.

Well, it’s been over six months . . .

Hiller said Gold would try to discern whether any undue influence had taken place.

“She will report to me and ultimately, if appropriate, to the readers, who are first and foremost our concern,” he said.

I guess they must have decided it wasn’t “appropriate,” because I never saw anything about it. Did I miss it?

You know, this would be a great question for Jamie Gold’s new blog, coming soon.

But I don’t want to wait. I’m e-mailing her now.

Regular readers may remember that I thought the Martinez flap was overblown. I would be very, very surprised to learn that Gold uncovered any improper influence — assuming she has finished the report. (By the way, if any of you readers at The Times have a copy, my e-mail address is patterico AT gmail DOT com!) So why wouldn’t that be an “appropriate” thing to report to readers?