More Hiltzik in the Media — Including Who *Hasn’t* Run a Story . . .
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?
What the readers don’t know won’t hurt them.
/LAT editor mode off
Good Lt (cf8676) — 5/1/2006 @ 6:43 amThe LA Times editors may have concluded it would be futile to compete with your comprehensive coverage. They’ve conceded the franchise to you.
Bradley J. Fikes (e619fc) — 5/1/2006 @ 6:46 amAin’t nobody home here but us chickens.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 5/1/2006 @ 8:34 amJust read about the “controversy”. Where is the disclaimer on this blog that the operator is a district attorney in LA?
Pedrito (7d3cc8) — 5/1/2006 @ 11:37 amA: why does that matter?
See Dubya (ae518a) — 5/1/2006 @ 11:47 amB: why is that something to be “disclaimed”?
C: it’s in the profile section on the right-hand sidebar
and
D: Dummy
Pedrito, I am Zuma Hans’ sock puppet. Don’t butt in on my franchise!
Zuma Hans' sock puppet (ea88e8) — 5/1/2006 @ 12:15 pmDeplorable maybe, odd no. Suppose Hiltzik had been hired away by the New York Times. I wouldn’t expect to see much in the LA Times about it. Anyway I expect the average LA Times reader won’t notice or care that his column is gone.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/1/2006 @ 12:31 pmNo, not odd, unfortunately. Just more high ethical non-publication from the local monopoly daily that’s steadily losing circulation.
trentk269 (3d3bfe) — 5/1/2006 @ 1:18 pmYou tell him, ZHSP! Brilliantly done!
Zuma Hans' sock puppet's sock puppet (5664e1) — 5/3/2006 @ 9:02 am