On his L.A. Times-sponsored blog, Michael Hiltzik once described Mary Katharine Ham as “a twentysomething Georgia grad who received postgraduate training in vacuous sarcasm from the Heritage Foundation.” Hiltzik added, for good measure:

I don’t know if Ham grew up as a trust fund baby in North Carolina, but if not, she’s sure learned to talk the talk.

Mary K. is engaging in a little delayed schadenfreude today. I mean, “realism.”

UPDATE: Spelling of Mary K.’s middle name corrected. Thanks to jeff.

Dean Baquet was back in the office as of Tuesday. So yesterday (Thursday) I sent him a friendly note asking again whether he’ll allow me to print his reason for declining to let me interview him about the paper’s disclosure of the Swift bank monitoring counterterror program:

Mr. Baquet,

According to your out-of-office reply, you should be back in the office.

I realize it’s always busy when one returns from vacation. Still, could you respond to my request that I be allowed to quote your e-mail explaining why you won’t be interviewed?

I’m told by many people who would know that you probably expected it to be quotable, without my having to ask your permisison. But I think the polite thing for me to do is to ask, since I didn’t make it clear that I intended to print any reply.

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

I have the feeling that I’m talking to a brick wall, but you never know. We’ll give him a few more days before we conclude that he is simply refusing to reply. If he never responds, I won’t publish it. But if it happens that way, it will be a disappointment and, I think, an example of cheating members of the public out of something they have a right to know.

In the meantime, I’ll work on transcribing portions of Luke Ford’s tape recording of Baquet’s interview regarding the Hiltzik matter and “pushback.” (Some of you may have missed the fact that there is a recording; it was a late update to the “pushback” post.)

I am especially interested in the parts where he claims that what happened to Hiltzik was in part a result of the paper’s failure to “push back” effectively (!). That is an odd statement that I hadn’t noticed in Luke’s description. Also, he believes that part of the reason for the paper’s declining circulation is “cheap criticism” of the paper. (And he sounds plenty angry when he says it, too!)

This could be the real reason he won’t let me interview him after all: maybe he thinks my blog is an example of the “cheap criticism” that is costing him readers — and that cost him a business columnist. (He didn’t say any of this; I’m speculating here.)

If that’s what he thinks, I disagree. I think my criticism is well-founded and fair — not “cheap.” Maybe he agrees; maybe not. But I wish I could ask him myself, and get him to answer.

Anyway, these are just teasers. There is a lot more to discuss from Luke’s recording. But it will be a more focused discussion with a transcript. So stay tuned.

Michael Hiltzik earns a mention in the Wikipedia entry for “sock puppet”:

“Sock Puppet” is also an internet/weblog term for an anonymous alias duplicitously used in the comment section by someone who is better known by another name. For example, L.A. Times Columnist Michael Hiltzik came under fire in April 2006 when it was revealed that he was anonymously posting under the “sock puppet” name of “Mikekoshi”, and possibly “Nofanofcablecos”, to attack those critical of his writings.[2] He did this both on the blogs of his critics, and even on his own blog in response to hostile commenters.

I quote it here for posterity’s sake, because Wikipedia fame is fleeting: here today, gone today (one second later).

UPDATE: Gone!

The rumors were apparently true. Hiltzik’s first piece after his suspension is a sports-related investigation piece, about Elton Brand’s troubles as a movie producer.

Allah sends the link to this story about a reporter fired for posting anonymous comments on the Internet:

A daily newspaper fired its courthouse reporter after he posted anonymous opinions on the public forum portion of the publication’s Web site, including comments critical of his own employer, the reporter said.

Justin Quinn said he was fired last month from the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, where he had worked for more than six years. He declined to discuss the content of his postings.

Editor Ray Shaw confirmed that Quinn no longer worked at the newspaper but declined to comment further on a personnel matter.

Wow. Maybe Hiltzik did get off easy.

I got to hang out with the media types again on Friday night at the Yamashiro restaurant.

I sat next to Chief Bratton, but didn’t talk to him much. He looked a little like he wanted to be somewhere else. His wife was wonderfully friendly and interesting.

I rather monopolized Jill Stewart’s time — but if you could, wouldn’t you?

I also said hi to Mickey Kaus, Cathy Seipp, and Bob Sipchen, whom I complimented for his excellent piece on education last week. (Today’s installment is good too. Also don’t miss Bob’s new education blog.)

I think that most of what people say at these events is presumed to be said in confidence. But I believe I’m at liberty to say this: that panel I told you about with Mickey Kaus, Bob Sipchen, Kevin Drum, and Michael Hiltzik? I had said that would have been interesting to see. But, it turns out, Hiltzik didn’t make it.

Speaking of Hiltzik, Steve and Cokie Roberts have a dismal piece about him. Not only do they downplay the sock-puppet angle (which they do mention, in passing), but they seem to think he was fired.

Not too Careful or Accurate. But that’s Big Media for you!

This is fun: if you do a Technorati search for the term “Patterico,”, the results page contains sponsored links for sock puppets — and for a subscription to the L.A. Times.

Here’s a screenshot in case this changes (thanks to Allah for converting it from a bitmap file)

:

If Michael Hiltzik’s Internet deception didn’t merit firing or significant discipline (and I believe it didn’t), then what kind of Internet deception from a jouralist does?

This kind.

(Thanks to Ace.)

I’m trying to wind down my posts about Michael Hiltzik. But I note that Cathy Seipp has also heard the rumor floated by Nikki Finke that Hiltzik will be reassigned to “sports investigations.” It’s still a rumor, of course, but I find rumors to be more credible coming from Cathy than from Finke.

One of Cathy’s commenters has this tongue-in-cheek speculation about Hiltzik’s first assignment.

In all seriousness, I wish Mr. Hiltzik good luck at his next assignment, whatever it is.

By the way, Cathy also notes (as did Kevin Roderick the other day) editor Baquet’s befuddlement that the crowd at the book fair didn’t seem to understand why Hiltzik had lost his column:

The Hiltzik affair may be a hot media story, but one that probably leaves average Times subscribers scratching their heads. “I think our readers representative said that maybe 20 people wrote in about Hiltzik,” Baquet said, adding that a lot of readers may be awfully confused by what happened to Hiltzik’s business section column, which was cancelled late Friday afternoon.

You mean readers don’t all read the little Editor’s Notes they publish in a small box on Page A2?

As commenter Bradley J. Fikes said in a comment at Cathy’s blog:

Going way out on a limb here, but that confusion just might be related to the Times’ nearly non-existent coverage of the issue.

Fikes has been saying that the paper ought to publish Baquet’s explanation for the reassignment, as explained to Roderick the other day: that he couldn’t have a business columnist unable to credibly write about duplicity. Perhaps they could publish some variant of this passage from an internal staff memo, which didn’t make it into the Editor’s Note about Hiltzik:

A columnist has a special place within The Times. Editors, colleagues and, most of all, readers must trust the integrity and judgment of a columnist because of the freedom that comes with the job. Mike often used his column to pillory business leaders for duplicity or violating the trust of employees, shareholders or the public and we are no longer comfortable granting him that special place within our newspaper.

Mr. Baquet, wouldn’t publishing this explanation be better than leaving your readers “awfully confused” about the reasons things are happening at your newspaper?

Kevin Roderick has an interesting post about Hiltzik:

Michael Hiltzik came up, of course, during my interview of Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet on Sunday at the Times Festival of Books. He beat me to the punch, alluding to the controversy as soon as the discussion turned to the paper’s online struggles. The bottom line is that Baquet called Hiltzik’s undoing a professional tragedy, but said he knew immediately that—regardless of what the blogosphere thought—Hiltzik’s use of pseudonyms to post favorable comments about himself and disparage his critics violated Times ethics. Baquet said he wasn’t certain sure how to punish Hiltzik until he read about Ken Lay’s trial last week and thought how the Enron saga would make great fodder for a business columnist. He realized then, Baquet said, that his business columnist—Hiltzik—could no longer write credibly about duplicity in the business world. There’s no place, he said, for dishonesty under the Times banner.

I’m not sure very many people in the audience other than the dozen or so Times staffers and a handful of bloggers (Cathy Seipp posed the first question from the audience, about the Hiltzik affair) had the slightest clue what we were talking about. Here’s a link to Friday’s news that Hiltzik’s column and blog were discontinued. For what it’s worth, almost every Times staffer and journalist I talked to about it this weekend thought Hiltzik was lucky to keep his job.

Go to Kevin’s post for the links and more Hiltzik reaction.

The media coverage of Michael Hiltzik’s suspension and loss of his column, which I surveyed below in this post, continues with a brief and unilluminating article in the Chicago Tribune.

Other than the brief Editor’s Note from the other day, no story on this issue has appeared in the L.A. Times. Nothing has appeared to explain the background of how Hiltzik’s pseudonyms came to light.

This means that the very readers who are going to lose his column are also the people who are most left in the dark as to why.

Doesn’t that seem odd?

I have argued for a couple of weeks now that Michael Hiltzik’s use of pseudonyms as sock puppets was embarrassing and silly, but not something that should get him disciplined by the Los Angeles Times — beyond, perhaps, a temporary suspension of his blog. (See my posts here and here, and the UPDATE below, for more on why I feel this way.)

Guess what? The King of the Blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds, agrees with me.

Glenn was on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” show on CNN this morning. Glenn discussed the Hiltzik matter at the very end of his appearance. The video is available at Expose the Left, here, and the relevant segment appears at 15:21. I can’t find a transcript, so I created one for your benefit:

Howard Kurtz: Glenn Reynolds, I want to turn now to Michael Hiltzik. He’s the Los Angeles Times columnist and blogger who lost his column and his blog just the other day, over an incident in which he posted, on his own blog and on other people’s blogs, some pretty disparaging language under pseudonyms. He didn’t use his own name; The Times said that this was unacceptable.

Should a blogger for a news organization, as opposed to an independent guy like yourself, be able to post comments anonymously?

Glenn Reynolds: Well, you know, I don’t know. To me, this seems more like a misdemeanor than like a felony. I mean, what he basically did is, he created what is known in the Internet world as “sock puppets,” which were fake IDs in the comments section of his blog and others, and these “sock puppets” would say:

[Holding up hands to imitate sock puppets]

[Right hand:] “Michael Hiltzik’s really smart!”

[Left hand:] “Yes, he is!”

[Laughter from Kurtz]

And, you know, they would take his side in arguments with other commenters and such. And, you know, it’s quite embarrassing for him to have it come out. It’s kinda cheesy, but . . . I guess this is my day to say that people aren’t as bad as the general press coverage of them is, but, you know, it just doesn’t seem like a felony to me. It seems like the tackiness rule should apply.

Kurtz: All right, we’ll leave it there. He also did get suspended for an undetermined period of time.

I think Glenn is exactly right. I have said all along that embarrassment should have been punishment enough for Hiltzik. It’s nice to know someone as level-headed as Glenn agrees.

P.S. This post by one of the principals behind the Independent Sources blog — which started the whole ball rolling on this controversy — is worth reading in its entirety. Highlights:

Bloggers were fine with the pseudonyms, but thought Hiltzik’s greater sin was the sock-puppetry: using those pseudonyms to talk up Hiltzik’s Golden State Blog both on its pages and at other blogs. If Hiltzik was going to post comments on Golden State as Michael Hiltzik — which he did — then it was deceitful to also comment under any other name.

. . . .

Even though bloggers were focused on what they perceived to be a greater sin, few were calling for Hiltzik’s head [citations]. The punishment had already been meted out, virtually instantaneously: post-Patterico, any knowledgeable person reading Hiltzik would henceforth do so with a few extra grains of salt.

This is the most fascinating part of this final chapter in l’affaire Hiltzik. The bloggers who did so much to bring Hiltzik’s deceit to light were far more forgiving than the institution for which he has toiled for over 20 years. The bloggers, it seems, associated Hiltzik’s transgression with Hiltzik himself, not with the LAT. And his punishment would be swift and fair — his devaluation in the marketplace of ideas.

Read it all.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the link. I hope new readers bookmark the main page, blogroll the site, and return daily. You can subscribe via Bloglines, by clicking on this button:

My original post on Hiltzik’s sock puppetry was here.

I know many will say: but, but . . . Hiltzik was dishonest! I address that argument in the posts linked above, but here’s the argument in a nutshell: gee, someone from the L.A. Times did something dishonest? Stop the presses!

If the paper is going to can everyone who has been intellectually dishonest in their pages, there are a lot of heads that belong on the chopping block before Hiltzik’s — starting with the people responsible for their (non)coverage of Mary McCarthy’s partisanship, and continuing with the issues I document in this post. These instances of bias and distortion are far more significant than Hiltzik’s silly sock puppets.