Michael Hiltzik bitterly mocks Hugh Hewitt because Hewitt’s blog has a lower average daily audience today than it had on a random day in February, hand-picked by Hiltzik. From this, Hiltzik draws grand conclusions about the public’s appetite for Hewitt’s brand of conservatism.
And how has the liberal Hiltzik’s hit count fared over the same period of time? We have no idea. He doesn’t have a Site Meter.
P.S. I left the above observation in a comment on Hiltzik’s site. He responded by claiming that his Site Meter is the daily circulation of his newspaper. I hated to be the one to break the news to Hiltzik: that not every reader of the L.A. Times reads him.
UPDATE: Independent Sources effectively debunks Hiltzik’s post as not only logically flawed, but also a rank distortion as a factual matter. They have Hugh’s traffic in graph form, and they dare readers to find a 20 percent drop. It just isn’t there . . . unless you cherry-pick your starting and ending points in a highly misleading fashion, as Hiltzik appears to have done.
Go look at the graph, and ask yourself: Who are you going to believe? Michael Hiltzik? Or your lying eyes?
UPDATE x2: Armed Liberal wonders why Hiltzik didn’t link Hewitt’s actual Site Meter. His conclusion: because Hiltzik is dishonest, and linking Hewitt’s actual Site Meter would have put the lie to Hiltzik’s claims.