5/21/2006

4 Responses to “Hiltzik is Back in the LAT”

1. Not a bad piece either showing that Hiltzik can be a positive for the paper when he focuses on the subject at hand instead of interjecting his agenda into the topic. (I wonder if it was hard for him not to do so?). Anyway it’s good for the sports section too and I personally hope that he tackles steroids next.

   insider (53c2ac) — 5/21/2006 @ 10:43 am

   
   

2. Isn’t it so typical of the Times, though, to run this sort of story right before the biggest game in the history of the Clippers franchise? I don’t see anything in the story that is so newsworthy that it couldn’t wait until after the season was over. Not that I think this will be any kind of distraction to them, but it does have a whiff of trying to rain on the Clips’ parade. At least Elton Brand comes off as a decent guy who is trying to be honest in this business dealings.

   And I kid you not, I didn’t even notice that it was Hiltzik who wrote the story.

   JVW (672d4b) — 5/21/2006 @ 11:24 pm

   
   

3. Still no word on the inquiry re: Roy Rivenburg making posts to weblogs using pseudonyms. Are you playing favorites Mr. Prosecutor? Why are you going easy on this LA Times reporter when you were so diligent about Hiltzik? Have you asked Roy about this?

   dont_feed_the_liberals (07c5ec) — 5/26/2006 @ 10:14 am

   
   

4. I responded to you before, Mr. Anonymous. You have no evidence. So ask him yourself.

   In response to your repeated references to me as a prosecutor: prosecutors make charges based on evidence. Anonymous asshole commenters like you make charges based on speculation.

   Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/27/2006 @ 11:44 pm