Patterico's Pontifications

12/21/2008

Readers’ Representative Blog Not Publishing Comments Saying Why Hiltzik Lost His Column?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Hiltzik — Patterico @ 9:02 pm

I told you Friday night that noted sock puppet Michael Hiltzik is getting his business column back. In her blog entry titled Michael Hiltzik to return to writing Business column, the Readers’ Representative makes no mention why Hiltzik lost his column in 2006 and took a little vacation to Sports and elsewhere. (In fairness, she is quoting an internal memo by an editor who also fails to mention it.)

So my pal Marc “Armed Liberal” Danziger left the following comment on the entry:

It’s somehow perfect timing that a dishonest reporter is brought back to cover business at a time when dishonesty is so much a part of the story.

Look, I’d kind of like the LA Times to survive; when will it become apparent to the powers-that-be there that what you are selling me is credible information.

And reporters like Hiltzik – who have shown that they have a – broad – set of values about candor and honesty don’t help convince people like me that the apples in your produce stand don’t have worms in them.

Oh – and were you not going to mention why?

MD

No, they were not. Nor does it seem likely that they are going to post Marc’s comment. He left it Friday evening. It’s been 48 hours now, and there’s still not a single comment on the item.

Oh well. Maybe nobody approves comments on the weekends. We’ll take a look at it tomorrow.

Marc has more here.

In the meantime, leave a comment of your own, if you feel so inclined. Go here to express your thoughts.

44 Responses to “Readers’ Representative Blog Not Publishing Comments Saying Why Hiltzik Lost His Column?”

  1. My comment, left moments ago:

    “The new column will showcase Michael’s range, depth and critical thinking on business subjects of national and local import.”

    Will it also display his dishonesty? Or merely his ability to read co-worker’s e-mail sans permission?

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  2. Are you going to mention the levels of dishonesty that this writer previously reached, and why he had this column taken from him previously? Or, is that another thing down the memory hole ?

    JD (7f8e8c)

  3. That’s the comment you left, JD?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  4. I don’t expect that liberals. actually leftists, are interested in individuals. Only in groups that follow their agenda. The Soviets spent decades in compelling their citizens to follow the dictates of the party. The party then used the power they were granted by the government in compelling those whose had no choice to contribute to the notion of group action. The USA has, until now, allowed the citizens to choose their own charitable purposes. I don’t know if that will continue since we have elected a leftist Congress and president. Kristoff seems to recognize this but I wonder if he has enough residual liberal sense to see if this goes wrong. I am not optimistic.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  5. When “Mikekoshi” wrote that [Republican partisan] Hugh Hewitt should be wearing a muzzle, the amateurish staff of the Los Angeles Times didn’t see anything wrong that, nor did they object to “Mikekoshi” calling [writer] Cathy Seipp a “tool.” This didn’t seem like dishonesty to them, but honesty. It was something they wish they’d done themselves.

    Official Internet Data Office (8aa339)

  6. Yes, Patterico. Sorry about the lack of formatting and attribution. It is -31 degrees here with the wind chill, and all of this global warming has frozen me to the core.

    JD (7f8e8c)

  7. It is -31 degrees here with the wind chill, and all of this global warming has frozen me to the core.

    *cough*

    While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  8. Hey, Scott. You know that down is up, right? AGW has always been about politics. That is why the “global warming” terminology has become “global climate change.”

    Look back to the Nuclear Winter nonsense in in the 1980s. Politics tends to dirty up and confuse any given issue; science is no different.

    Eric Blair (e906af)

  9. That was a joke, right Scott?

    That sounds like an argument that HL, jharpy, alphie/turnip/sniffles would push.

    JD (7f8e8c)

  10. My car is frozen here, and all the corn liquor in the gasoline is not helping.

    I move that the so-called newspaper on Spring St. in Los Angeles only be referred to as the LASlimes, until they clean the debris that infests it’s buildings.

    PCD (7fe637)

  11. No JD. It’s actually a serious statement a person made, without a single hint of irony or sarcasm.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  12. That wasn’t a person, it was the AP’s science writer.
    What a maroon.

    kaf (e8c4af)

  13. Well, only a scientific simpleton would believe that global warming is as straightforward as ‘the earth and all of its locations are constantly 10 degrees warmer than I think they should be at all times’.

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29074&Cr=ozone&Cr1=climate

    While I realize this particular story is about carbon dioxide I will cut off the “this link isn’t even about global warning, what a maroon” responses by indicating that yes, the two are related.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

    Specifically pay attention to the footnote:

    Values expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are calculated based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is the ratio of the warming that would result from the emission of one kilogram of a greenhouse gas to that from the emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a fixed period of time such as 100 years.

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  14. Well, only a scientific simpleton would believe that global warming is as straightforward as ‘the earth and all of its locations are constantly 10 degrees warmer than I think they should be at all times’.

    Yes, but one would think that “global warming” did mean that the average global temp was higher – not ALL places, but the overall average.

    And you ARE aware that solar activity has been shown to have a far greater correlation to global temp than CO2 ever has? and that your argument for CO2 hinges on not only shoddy math, but bad – even corrupted – data?

    The concept of “GWP” is utterly arbitrary, and has no true basis in observable reality. It was a number picked to make the data fit into the mold they wanted it to fit.

    If Global Warming was a fact, then even ONE of the current models used by the AWG crowd would have been able to even come close to predicting future behavior. To date, they have yet to do so, even once.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  15. Two acquaintances of mine , who are global warming zealots/true believers, were stranded in Seattle this weekend. The airport was closed due to snow, and their flight back to Los Angeles was cancelled. With most flights full for the holidays, and a need to get back to Los Angeles, they’ve rented a car for the 1,400 mile drive home. It’s a long drive, but as true believers, I doubt that they’ll spend any time wondering whether “global warming” is all it’s cracked up to be.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  16. They won’t wonder about it because AGW is a religion.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  17. The odds that they will get stuck and freeze to death are quite real.

    As of about 10pm Seattle time, there was like 2 foot of snow.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  18. It has been nonstop cold for two-three weeks in Seattle. Winter is *usually* in the 40s with some lows in the 30s.

    This is the third year of snow. Right now Seattle is barely functional. Rivers and lakes are freezing over – some that I’ve never seen freeze over in all my time here.

    Yeah. Global warming means global cooling.

    And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

    steve miller (af221d)

  19. So what is the “right” temperature? What should “normal” be?

    steve miller (af221d)

  20. Once again TMJ hijacks a thread.

    SPQR (72771e)

  21. In an e-mail I just sent to the Reader’s Rep:

    Were you people ever going to approve comments on the bit about Hiltzik, or were you planning on continuing your usual level of duplicity by keeping anything approaching criticism of anyone or anything related to the LA Times from the eyes of the general public?

    I only ask, because well… I enjoy the futility.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  22. And imagine my surprise…

    This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

    Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

    rep@latimes.com

    Technical details of permanent failure:
    Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected rep@latimes.com (state 14).

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  23. Mr Jacobs noted:

    Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently.

    Maybe they’re laying off newspaper carriers, too, and delivery fails in both directions. :)

    The Dana who had a paper route (3e4784)

  24. Those who who lost money invested with Bernie Madoff also universally “believe” in Anthropomorphic Global Warming. There’s a pattern here. I just can’t discern it. Yet.

    C. Norris (5b21dc)

  25. Is TMJ actually discussing climate science now? Oh, my. And instructing us to read footnotes that, frankly, I doubt that it understands?

    A couple of places to get, well, non-Hansen type information (that is, scientifically honest and non-agenda driven):

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/a_skeptics_prim.html

    And this article from a genuine climate scientist is interesting reading as well:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116

    Science is a human profession, so these kinds of shenanigans should not shock me.

    I post this as I prepare to go shovel snow in the Seattle area.

    It’s really just evidence of warming, of course.

    By the way? The footnote that TMJ parrots? Think about what it actually measures: carbon dioxide or other potential greenhouse gasses produced by people. Notice that the global budget isn’t discussed. Methane, for example, is 20 – 50 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than that nasty old carbon dioxide. Here is a hint: how much methane is released to the atmosphere, annually, compared to carbon dioxide?

    Is some degree of warming happening? Maybe, although the last two years have given Hansen and his cronies hives.

    But as Dr. K. has said, this is real Left of center progressivist politics, designed to help create more controls on the economy. And we know how well that works.

    Eric Blair (e906af)

  26. While I realize this particular story is about carbon dioxide I will cut off the “this link isn’t even about global warning, what a maroon” responses by indicating that yes, the two are related.

    My brother and I are also related. But strangely enough, I do not cause him. Nor does CO2 cause global warming. My kids, OTOH, well, I’ll have to own up to that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. My kids, OTOH, well, I’ll have to own up to that.

    I could make a smartassed comment like “That’s what you think” or “Your wife says different”, but that would be rude and not at all in the spirit of Christmas. :)

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  28. Nah, it’s pretty obvious, Scott. Unless she’s been sleeping with my brother….

    Pablo (99243e)

  29. I’ve never understood why Hiltzik has had 9 lives at the LAT, while many of his more deserving colleagues have jumped or were pushed out. There have been several fireable offenses, and he’s not a member of any protected class that I’m aware of.

    Journo (faece3)

  30. It’s interesting to see the true beliefs of leftists come out once in a while. Washington Monthly has such an example here.

    I posted a comment:
    When Good Morning America, CNN, Today, the NBC Evening News and the other MSM outlets restore political balance, talk radio will lose its unique appeal for conservatives. I don’t expect that anytime soon. None of you listen so I know you don’t know why conservatives listen. It’s amazing the news you hear that is covered nowhere else. That’s why Air America is such a failure. It’s redundant.

    Nice to see CJ express the leftist urge for totalitarianism so clearly.

    Posted by: Mike K on December 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM

    Let’s see how long before it is deleted.

    Note the sentiment in the first comment:

    As has been repeated over and over in the comments section, the radio airwaves belong to us, the public…not conservatives. It frustrates me that we, the public, allow conservatives to use our airwaves, seemingly exclusively, to undermine us with lies and hate speech. It’s one thing to have a point-of-view, but it’s quite another to support that point of view with make-believe “facts” and statistics while simultaneously arguing that anybody who disagrees with them are traiters, etc.

    I don’t know what the solution is, but we shouldn’t allow this to continue unabated.

    Posted by: CJ on December 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM |

    They always reach for the club and the Gestapo to silence critics. They’re not good at argument, as we see here time and again. Get ready for four years of this.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  31. My brother and I are also related. But strangely enough, I do not cause him. Nor does CO2 cause global warming. My kids, OTOH, well, I’ll have to own up to that.

    Comment by Pablo — 12/22/2008 @ 8:38 am

    That analogy has to be one of the worst I have ever read, and I have definitely read some classics. Congratulations, Blo!

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  32. Wow Mike…

    Reading those comments… I just…

    Wow.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  33. Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:41 am

    Then explain, idiot, why CO2 levels and global Temp have less than a 5% correlation…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  34. This is a relatively moderate leftist site, if there is such a thing. It’s a monthly magazine and not just a nutball site like DU. It used to be much better when Kevin Drum was running it but they stated deleting comments about a year ago. He is now at Mother Jones and they don’t even post my comments. I emailed him about it when they began to delete them but he said he had no control. They really don’t want other opinions. If I included links to support a comment point, it was deleted faster. When Kevin had his own blog, he was not as resistant to other views although we rarely agreed on anything. This is a growing trend, as we see with the Times.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  35. I’ve never understood why Hiltzik has had 9 lives at the LAT, while many of his more deserving colleagues have jumped or were pushed out. There have
    been several fireable offenses, and he’s not a member of any protected class that I’m aware of.

    Pathological liars don’t qualify as a suspect class?

    Soronel Haetir (644722)

  36. TNJ, the ice cores show that CO2 levels follow global temperatures. It’s physically impossible for a cause to come after the effect.

    Historically, pre-historically, and anecdotally, warming isn’t a Bad Thing. Based on the evidence, I’d rather live in a warmer, moister world than in a cooler, drier world.

    In any case, AGW is irrelevant to the question of why someone suspended for dishonesty has been retained and reinstated at a newspaper. It’s almost as if dishonesty isn’t that big of a deal for reporters.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  37. That analogy has to be one of the worst I have ever read, and I have definitely read some classics. Congratulations, Blo!

    And once again, truthnjustice completely ignores the substantive rebuttal and offers no rebuttal of his own. This is a lousy troll. Perhaps Santa will bring us a troll with some skillz.

    Meanwhile, still no comments posted on the Hiltzik story.

    Pablo (99243e)

  38. “Meanwhile, still no comments posted on the Hiltzik story.”

    Hey, lookee there. An on-topic comment.

    Patterico (8b22e1)

  39. They are not going to like this one, either. It was sent not to the editor but to Tim Rutten.
    Sir;

    You obituary of Paul Weyrich is a mean spirited and vulgar attack on a man no longer able to defend himself. Once again, you demean yourself far more than his memory with your ugly spiteful screed. With the Times laying off so many reporters, why are you still there ?

    Michael Kennedy
    Mission Viejo, CA

    The letter refers to this story. It’s an obituary, for Christ’s sake !

    Weyrich, by contrast, labored ceaselessly for the introduction of sectarian religion into American political life in a manner that was neither traditional nor conservative, but truly radical. He himself — an ordained deacon in the Melkite Church — acknowledged that, and, unlike so many contemporary religious conservatives, was fond of pointing out that what he advocated was novel in the American system — a politics in which what he and his confreres regarded as virtue would take precedence over what the majority of Americans regarded as liberty.

    As he once said: “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our [conservative] leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

    Viguerie said Thursday that Weyrich “was a throwback to an earlier age of people in politics, people who prized free-market economics, old-fashioned traditional values.”

    There is, however, nothing traditional in the American sense about the theocratic pretensions that Weyrich and the rest of the religious right he helped to create advocate. Nothing in our recent history has been as divisive or as destructive.

    When can I write an obituary on the Times?

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  40. Isn’t this the same LASlimes that refused to publish or allow any comments about baby daddy Edwards during the primaries and up until Edwards made full confession? Seems like the usual M.O. for that skanky fish rag.

    eaglewingz08 (c46606)

  41. Finally, one comment. Just one.

    Yay!
    I predict many comments here, praising this decision to reinstate Hiltzik, by commenters with different names but curiously with the same IP address.

    Posted by: OSweet | December 20, 2008 at 09:11 AM

    Pablo (99243e)

  42. LMFAO!!!!

    That, sir, is PRICELESS!!!!

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  43. I received this e-mail from <a href=”mailto:Jamie.Gold@latimes.com”Jamie Gold, date and time stamped 12/23/2008 9:37:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time:

    Thank you for the comment you submitted to the readers’ representative journal at the Los Angeles Times, Dana. You and a number of other readers sent smart questions in response to the recent post about Michael Hiltzik, questions that obviously warranted answers. I’m planning to post your comments, and the editor’s thoughts on the issues raised. I hope to do so by tomorrow.

    Thanks for your patience,
    Jamie Gold
    Readers’ Representative

    This was the comment I added, on the 21st.

    I have to say that I do not understand this decision. Mr Hiltzik may have been a fine reporter, but once a reputation for dishonesty creeps in, that’s it, you’re done in this business.

    Remember, it was dishonesty that cost Mr Hiltzik his column in the first place; perhaps you think that has been forgotten, but the same sources which pointed it out in the first place haven’t forgotten, and have taken note of Mr Hiltzik’s return.

    What is interesting to me is that the Times’ parent company is in Chapter 11, and a lot of good reporters who don’t have a problem with a reputation for dishonesty are out on the streets, looking wistfully at the Times building where they used to work.

    However, the comment has still not appeared on the site. :)

    The very patient Dana (556f76)

  44. Apparently no further comments at the LAT Blog post 12/20. Just not much interest, eh? </sarc

    I just tried to post a second one:

    Is Hiltzik’s falsely claiming that the S.S. Trustees said something about illegal immigration that not only did they not say, but also concerning a topic they instead specifically said they were not addressing, really much different from not posting the facts about this Hiltzik-LAT episode, not to mention then inviting comments and not posting them – as though they never existed?

    And, btw, what special power does this Hiltzik have over the LAT?

    J."Trashman" Peden (eb2917)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3592 secs.