Jamie Gold (Apparently Prompted by Patterico Readers) Did Explain Why Hiltzik Is Considered “Redeemed” by the L.A. Times
From the “Things I Missed While on Vacation” File: L.A. Times Readers’ Rep Jamie Gold eventually did publish some critical comments about Michael Hiltzik’s return to column writing. (She did so only after I published a post noting the lack of critical comments; note that Marc Danziger’s comment, cited in that post, was never approved.) Gold apparently wrote editor Russ Stanton to get his take on why Hiltzik should get his column back. Gold writes:
The essence of the response from editors: Hiltzik has redeemed himself.
Russ Stanton, now editor of The Times, was Business editor when Hiltzik’s popular column for the Business section was discontinued. As the editor’s note published at the time said, Hiltzik had been found to be violating The Times’ ethics guidelines by using pseudonyms to post comments on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.
Readers were also told in the 2006 editor’s note, “Mike did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web.”
Hm. An external inquiry has. Try this, as one example. But then, external inquiries tend to be a bit more vigorous than L.A. Times internal inquiries. Back to Gold:
Since his column was pulled in 2006, writes Stanton, Hiltzik “has been an invaluable asset to the paper. He has earned the right to return as a columnist.” In those two years, more than 35 news articles written by Hiltzik have been published on the front page. Stanton says editors believe that what readers can learn from Hiltzik the columnist will be as trustworthy as what he’s delivered in his news reports.
So, you know, rest easy.
Thanks to a reader.
P.S. As with my last post, I think this warrants inclusion in my recent Year in Review, which I will be updating.