Apparently Deleted Hiltzik Post About a Banned Commenter
Michael Hiltzik recently published, and then apparently deleted, this post on his blog:
As commenters to this blog–and especially to my recent posts on partisan criticism of the press–are well aware, my policy on comments has always been exceedingly tolerant. Comments have been welcomed and have been unmoderated, even when the opinions they express are immoderate. Throughout this week, I have seen fit to delete almost no comments on a topic that has provoked intense and sometimes quite emotional reaction on all sides.
One commenter has now queered this setup for everybody. Despite my polite request to him to cease posting inappropriately, he has continued to do so. Therefore, comments to this blog will be moderated, by me, hopefully temporarily. My intention is not to block comments simply because they’re critical, even when they’re pointed and, in my opinion, wrong. The purpose is merely to keep one particular user from fouling the whole pond. (You know who you are.)
Accordingly, there may be delays between your posting comments and their appearance on the site. These delays may run to a few hours, if I am away from the computer. But the delays will be as brief as I can make them. I hope everybody else continues to offer comment.
Unmoderated commenting will resume as soon as possible.
Hiltzik’s post is gone (it was originally posted here), but it shows up in his RSS feeds, which say that it was posted Friday afternoon.
It is apparently a reference to someone who left comments regarding The Times‘s circulation as an indication of reader dissatisfaction. The culprit explains here, and publishes an e-mail from Hiltzik in which Hiltzik calls the commenter’s comment a “lie” and “too stupid to countenance.”
I wonder why Hiltzik’s post is gone. The last time that posts of his disappeared, it turned out that there was an innocent explanation: a Typepad glitch. But the Typepad status page is currently indicating no problems with Typepad.
What’s going on here?
And just when I was considering commending Hiltzik and the LAT for allowing comments and not banning/erasing them on thought-control grounds – as is instead the wont of many Liberal sites, at least in my experience. Again, so much for free-thought, tolerance, and diversity!
J. Peden (11c761) — 1/8/2006 @ 10:37 amThis whole episode seems like another in a long line of Stupid Media Moments until you read Mr. Hiltzik’s subsequent email to James Chen, the banned commenter:
“Too stupid to countenance” is right up there with “stuck on stupid”. Unfortunately for Mr. Hiltzik, they both apply to him.
DRJ (15ed57) — 1/8/2006 @ 10:56 amI think that the Times’ declining circulation is a serious cultural taboo for its reporters.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/8/2006 @ 11:52 amThe way Hiltzik made his own post and the commenter’s post disappear reminds me of the of the way Stalin made Trotsky disappear.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 1/8/2006 @ 12:16 pmPatrick:
Anybody can claim to be the mystery commenter. But only I, and the commenter him- or herself, knows who it was, along with the content and behavior that provoked my reaction. You don’t. And you and your readers would be better served if you didn’t assume that you did.
[Your apparently deleted post refers to “one” commenter. Mr. Chen says his comments were deleted, and as proof he has published an e-mail that sounds an awful lot like it was written by you. How many commenters’ comments have you been deleting over there? Are you saying Mr. Chen is lying about his comments being deleted, and what they said?? — Patterico]
Michael Hiltzik (f85090) — 1/8/2006 @ 1:21 pmAs my post read, and you quoted, “I have seen fit to delete almost no comments” on the comment threads to the partisan criticism posts. That indicates that the number of deletions isn’t zero, nor is it large. The policy articulated in the rest of my post, especially the first paragraph you quote above, remains in force, as should be evident to anybody who reads the comment threads.
[Did you delete Mr. Chen’s comments or not? Do you deny that he is the reason you moderated comments or not? — Patterico]
Michael Hiltzik (f85090) — 1/8/2006 @ 1:39 pmPatrick and Michael,
The links to the deleted or moderated comments are no longer active.
Michael, how about posting them?
Mr. Chen, if you are watching this comment thread how about reposting the material or sending it to Flap and I will post it.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
By the way, Michael, Flap has a comments policy. Perhaps you should develop one, eh?
Flap
Flap (cc77c4) — 1/8/2006 @ 4:29 pmFlap:
Michael Hiltzik (f85090) — 1/8/2006 @ 5:16 pmWe have a comments policy and always have had one. It’s linked to directly from the blog’s comments form. You’re welcome to go there and read it, paying particular attention to the section headed “posting rules.” You’ll no doubt find that our rules are very similar to yours.
Los Angeles Times Watch: Hugh Hewitt – Michael Hiltzik in ANGER Stage
Flap cannot resist…….
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (baa0b4) — 1/8/2006 @ 5:20 pmHugh Hewitt: The Five Stages of MSM Death –Hiltzik and the Anger Stage
We are now in the second of five stages of old media death. First there was denial, and now there is anger, with Hiltzik’s childis…
Thanks Michael,
It might be helpful to say comments policy rather than Here’s the full legal spiel.
How about trackbacks? Can you add them to your blog?
Ventura County Star has comments and trackbacks on their news pieces.
Flap
Flap (cc77c4) — 1/8/2006 @ 5:50 pmMichael, I have some questions appended to your earlier comments, in case you missed them.
Patterico (929da9) — 1/8/2006 @ 6:13 pmIf the comments policy of the L.A. Times blogs was actually enforced, some of Michael Hiltzik’s own postings would be deleted.
Posts that meet any of the following descriptions are prohibited:
… contains epithets or slurs, is defamatory, disparaging, grossly inflammatory, false, misleading, inaccurate, unfair, contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims, is unreasonably harmful or offensive to any individual or community …
(I edited out much non-controversial stuff about profanity, libel, copyright, etc.)
These strictures are so broad that the moderator basically has a free hand to delete anything he doesn’t like.
So when somebody calls Arnold Schwarzenegger a “fascist”, that didn’t meet the threshold of “disparaging.” And when Hiltzik himself calls Patterico a “Stalinist,” that didn’t quite measure up to “gross exaggeration.”
Judging by what Hiltzik allows in his comments, I can only speculate that the deleted comments must have involved either child porn, bestiality or criticism of the L.A. Times.
Dennis Mosher (693d33) — 1/8/2006 @ 7:36 pmThe quicker you guys just whip your dicks out and compare, the sooner this will be over with. Sheesh…
krusty the klown (a58b6c) — 1/8/2006 @ 11:31 pmHey, Krusty, that means Patterico will win, since liberals are all limp in that department.
Dana (3e4784) — 1/9/2006 @ 4:39 amKrusty:
But Krusty, blogwars are such fun to read!
Being partial to the right, I especially like it when lefties who claim to be staunch defenders of the First Amendment make such transparently foolish mistakes with the power granted them by being owners of a blog. I don’t blame Hiltzik for standing up for his employer, and he certainly isn’t required to let commenters cast unreasonable aspersions on his employer or its work.
With that said, it is obvious that an asserted link by the banned author between reported reduced circulation and reader discontent cannot be reasonably dismissed as “too stupid to countenance.” To me, it looks like the commenter struck a nerve and Hiltzik overreacted.
But since I like to pick sides, and sticking with the theme of your sex organ comparison, I’ll say that Hiltzik would definitely loose the contest you suggest since Patterico so obviously emasculated him earlier.
Truzenzuzex (68452e) — 1/9/2006 @ 5:55 amHi Folks,
I’ve had three posts deleted by Sir Hiltzik today. Fortunately, I made copies of two of them. Maybe I can’t figure it out, but could someone review them (below) and tell me how I violated the rules. Thanks.
First Deleted Post:
True. And whatever happens on this blog that HitzKiller doesn’t like, he just deletes the post. Censorship. Keeping track Michael.
Posted by: Specter | January 09, 2006 at 07:32 AM
Second Deleted Post:
Specter (466680) — 1/9/2006 @ 9:31 amSo Michael,
Why did you delete the my posts and those of “da Man”? Was it because we pointed to the fact that the LA Times circulation keeps going down? Is that a fact you don’t want people to know? Is it appropriate for you, an “unbiased” journalist to censor posts because you do not like the content? Did you disagree with my statement that the print news is like a dinosaur? What caused you to delete my previous post?
Just one more time:
When I copied and pasted the same posts back on Hiltzik’s site (like I did above), it was censored within 20 minutes. So I posted the following:
Thank you for deleting yet another post Michael. You know, I sit here all day long and can copy and paste back here as fast as you can censor. But it doesn’t matter because I also put copies of those deleted posts in other places. The word will get out.
You know, I asked in several of the posts which of your “broad” legal spiel rules I broke. I have read them and can’t decide if it because you think I am “flaming” you, or the Times, or if it another of the general rules. It is funny though – the things I said are public knowledge anyways. Now if it was “flaming” (a term held over from usenet days and before), you should delete every post that takes a potshot at you – for the very same reason.
But you must admit that it really detracts from your credibility. Your actions and behavior show exactly what Patrick Frey and others have been claiming all along – that if you don’t agree with something – if it does not fit your “worldview” – you simply ignore it. You do it on the print side, and now you do it here.
So much for being objective. You have clearly demonstrated your bias.
Posted by: Specter | January 09, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Did I break the rules again?
Specter (466680) — 1/9/2006 @ 9:53 amIs using “queer” as a verb still acceptable language for a L.A. times writer?
TomHynes (36cb4e) — 1/9/2006 @ 10:23 amNot only is the word acceptable at the LA Times–often, it’s a way of life.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 1/9/2006 @ 10:29 amArlen(?) Specter wrote:
Maybe he just doesn’t like you?
I’ve never visited his site, and don’t have any intention to do so. At this point all we are doing is boosting his circulation.
Dana (3e4784) — 1/9/2006 @ 11:15 amPlease do not cast me in that light. Just plain Specter. Been around since before Arlen knew that the World Wide Web, let alone the internet existed.
Specter (466680) — 1/9/2006 @ 11:47 amPatterico-
Read the following article and the last paragraph made me think of you. The fact that you acknowledge when the LAT actually gets it right gives you a lot of credibility. Didn’t know if you noticed this story last month.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/Armstrongwilliams/2006/01/09/181413.html
nyy23dm (907320) — 1/9/2006 @ 8:25 pmThe Patterico-Hiltzik exchange made Howard Kurtz’ Media Notes in “The Washington Post” today:
mh (952a36) — 1/10/2006 @ 8:56 am