Patterico's Pontifications

1/3/2009

Jamie Gold (Apparently Prompted by Patterico Readers) Did Explain Why Hiltzik Is Considered “Redeemed” by the L.A. Times

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Hiltzik — Patterico @ 10:57 pm

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.

16 Responses to “Jamie Gold (Apparently Prompted by Patterico Readers) Did Explain Why Hiltzik Is Considered “Redeemed” by the L.A. Times”

  1. 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.”

    Yeah, I specifically refuted the “no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web”, too, in a post on Hiltzik’s LAT blog right after Hiltzik was removed, and comments were solicited on the “sock puppet” issue, to be dealt with by Matt somebody. I proved that Hiltzik had indeed lied about what the ~”S.S. Trustees had said” in his Costa Mesa post, etc..

    Apparently the LAT didn’t check that one out either. So the only reasonable conclusion is that Hiltzik’s alleged rehabilitation is similarly not credibly substantiated. But what else is new?

    J."Trashman" Peden (15c20d)

  2. What’s most alarming is that with the rampant layoffs in newspaperville, there have to be three hundred fine writers who would make excellent columnists. To give this guy – who didn’t commit his first indiscretion with the sock puppetry – another shot is offensive.

    Qualitatively, at least he’s got to be better than Plaschke, anyway.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  3. Hiltzik’s rehabilitation is straight out of the OJ School of Self Inquiry. I was expecting to read: “Hiltzik is looking for the real sock puppet.”

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  4. Just watch, the libtards will do the same thing for John Edwards too. In a year or so he will be all forgiven and Obama will place him back in the fold…. Remember, they are the party of forgiveness — (only as to their own).

    J. Raymond Wright (0440ef)

  5. It’s a damned low standard; saying that he’s written 35 stories for the front page of the Dog Trainer, and that somehow re-establishes Hiltzik’s credibility. Based on what I see on the front page, there’s very little there that would establish any reporter’s credibility for any purpose.

    I think Hiltzik must have some photos of the editor/publisher in a very compromising position.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  6. Nauseating. I wonder if there’s at least going to be a requirement that Hiltzik’s “business” column actually deals with business, not his inane political pontifications and bloviations.

    Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407)

  7. I understand he is an expert in rearranging deck chairs. The Times has need of such talent.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  8. I think Hiltzik must have some photos of the editor/publisher in a very compromising position.

    If so, he probably hacked into a co-workers email account to get them.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  9. Qualitatively, at least he’s got to be better than Plaschke, anyway.

    A gorilla who had spent the past five years chewing on lead paint chips every day would be better than Plaschke.

    M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0)

  10. Patterico’s well-chronicled list of LAT faux-pas remains a fine obit to this dead tomb. Someone should really call them up and tell’em they’ve been out of the news business for a while now.

    No surprise the LATitanic was a paper boat and clearly a headliner that sank months ago. Wonder who’ll pick up the survivors.

    DCSCA (d8da01)

  11. Comment by JVW — 1/4/2009 @ 12:03 pm

    This gives further evidence that Hiltzik’s dishonesty and lack of ethical behavior is long-term and seemingly chronic problem that has manifest itself over the course of time in one form or another.

    I would safely assume that many of us who comment here work with sensitive and confidential information wherein discretion and maintaining a high standard of ethical behavior is of paramount importance and as such I highly doubt that any of us would remotely even think about egregiously hacking into a colleague’s email just to snoop.

    He has earned the right to return as a columnist.

    So apparently I missed Hiltzik’s public admission of his deceit and lack of ethical behavior, his remorse for said behavior, and necessary apology in the pages of the LAT for deceiving we, the readers?

    Dana (137151)

  12. Jamie Gold to World:

    Move along now, nothing to see here!

    AD (72058b)

  13. Since his column was pulled in 2006, writes Stanton, Hiltzik “has been an invaluable asset to the paper.”

    Attempting to downsize its staff, evidently the LAT cannot afford to buy out this “invaluable” asset. With “invaluable assets” like this, no one could afford to buy the LAT.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  14. Its been pretty hilarious to see just how many scandals have been stinkin’ up the Obama administration even before the inauguration.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. The original Reader’s Rep. post on Hiltzik still has only about 9 comments. My two didn’t make it. I guess the official historical record on the move re-enstating Hiltzik will say only what the LAT wants it to say.

    It must be that certain people at the LAT desperately want their decisions to look ok, at least temporarily, when they apparently actually know that the opposite is really the case.

    What does Hiltzik have on them?

    J."Trashman" Peden (1bf8bb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3085 secs.