Baquet on Using the L.A. Times to “Push Back” Against Blogger Critics
I read something disturbing last night about the way the editor of the L.A. Times views criticism of his newspaper. Apparently, editor Dean Baquet sees criticism as something to “push back” against.
And, he may be planning to use the pages of the printed newspaper itself to “push back” against the paper’s blogger critics — including, very possibly, myself. [UPDATE: The “pushback” against Times critic Hugh Hewitt has already begun — see UPDATE below.]
Here are the details:
I was browsing the Internet for information on how to pronounce Baquet’s name (it’s BACK-ay), when I ran across this post by Luke Ford. It sets forth in detail comments allegedly made by editor Baquet back in May, just after he yanked Michael Hiltzik’s column and blog for posting Internet comments about himself under pseudonyms.
I had long since read (and linked) Kevin Roderick’s more limited account of Baquet’s May comments. But Luke Ford appears to have been taking notes. And his quotes of Baquet are very interesting — and, to me, a bit unsettling.
Here, taken from Ford’s post, is Ford’s transcription of Baquet’s statements about Hiltzik — and about critics of The Times, such as myself:
“We had a screw-up in the past couple of weeks. We’ll screw up again on the Internet”
Dean: “It was a tragedy. Some of what happened with Mike had nothing to do with the Internet You can’t lie if you want to work for The LA Times. I was not swayed by the argument that he had gone into a world where people do this kind of thing. That’s like saying that people who cover Hollywood for The Times cover people who lie, therefore it is OK for the people covering Hollywood to lie.
“What Mike [Hiltzik] did was a grave sin. He lied.
“I was sitting at home one morning reading about Enro[n]. I pick up the paper and I read the account of Ken Lay [testimony]. I’m thinking, ‘If I was a business columnist, I’d have fun with this one. Ken Lay blames everyone else but himself.’
“I only have one business columnist. I asked myself, ‘Could Mike write that column?’ It hit me that Mike could not write that column and that he should not be a columnist. He lost his credibility to beat up business executives who obfuscate or lie.
“I still think it’s a tragedy because Mike was a good columnist and in many ways he’s a fine journalist and he’s written many important stories for the paper.
“It was an easy decision to make [to remove Mike’s blog and column].”
LA Times journalists are not unionized so it would’ve been easy for Dean to fire Mike.
Hiltzhik was a rare member of the Times to push back against Times critics. Dean says the Times should push back. He’s not sure that such pushback should only be online. “Newspapers don’t know how to respond to critics.”
Interesting. Editor Dean Baquet says that the newspaper should “push back” against critics of his paper. In a discussion about Hiltzik, the reference to critics of the paper obviously refers to blogger critics. More specifically, it includes me — since I am one of the main objects of Hiltzik’s own efforts at “pushback” (Hugh Hewitt is another), as well as the one who broke the news about Hiltzik’s sock puppetry.
And Baquet thinks that the “pushback” shouldn’t necessarily be only online. And I don’t think he’s talking about standing on Spring and Second Streets with a bullhorn and screaming at passersby.
Baquet is saying: maybe the paper’s editors should use the newspaper itself to “push back” against critics of the paper — including myself.
He’s talking about using a newspaper read by almost a million people to “push back” against . . . bloggers.
Let’s place to one side the rather ominous nature of that statement, and just examine it for its psychology.
Why does the instinctive reaction have to be to “push back”? I understand that, if you think criticism is unfair, you’d like to defend yourself. That makes sense. I get that.
But, speaking for myself, I don’t think my criticism is ever unfair. You might agree sometimes, and disagree others. (More than one L.A. Times staffer has secretly told me that they sometimes agree with me! Their names will be withheld to protect the guilty.) But agree or disagree, my complaints are always documented. And I have obtained more corrections than I can count — and have deserved far, far more.
Rather than rushing to “push back” against critics, why not stop for a second and reflect on whether the criticisms have merit?
If I ever got Mr. Baquet to sit for an interview (an invitation I recently extended, but which was declined), this would be part of it.
It’s a far cry from the days when folks like myself were actually invited onto the paper’s own op-ed pages to make our criticisms heard.
And that’s a real shame.
[UPDATE: Matt Welch notes in comments that the paper has indeed recently run such an op-ed. I was out of town and had missed that. Thanks to Matt for bringing it to my attention.]
P.S. If Ford’s quotes are accurate, you can pick out parts of them and make an interesting syllogism:
You can’t lie if you want to work for The LA Times.
What Mike did was a grave sin. He lied.
Yet he’s working for the L.A. Times.
I’m fine with that, as I have said before. But I don’t understand the logic — again, if the quotes are accurate. [UPDATE 7-9-06: Now that I have listened to this portion, I think the quote is indeed inaccurate. Baquet appears to be saying that no questions had been raised about the journalism in Hiltzik’s column, or that he lied — but that what Hiltzik did was a “grave sin,” and he couldn’t comment on dishonesty in business. I see no hypocrisy there on Baquet’s part, at all.]
More fodder for an interview that will never be.
UPDATE: Is this the sort of “pushback” Baquet was talking about?
As that doddering shill Hugh Hewitt put it back then, The Times was “an organ of the Democratic Party” with no interest other than “agenda journalism.”
That’s Steve Lopez, L.A. Times columnist, from June 7. After Baquet talked about “pushback” against Times critics.
When I first read that, I thought it was an isolated expression of disdain. But now that I’ve read Baquet’s comments, I’m thinking it could be part of an organized campaign.
UPDATE x2: Luke Ford has audio of Baquet’s comments, here. It’s not great sound, but he quite definitely uses the phrase “push back” — several times. Listen around 35:17. He talks about how he’s tired of “cheap criticism,” and says that maybe what happened to “Mike” [Hiltzik] was the result of the paper not knowing how to “push back.”
A paper’s only stock in trade is credibility. You lot threaten that. It’s a business, and they’re going to defend it, just like any other business. Oh, sure, they could change their approach and become objective and responsible. But I doubt it. Like most people they only see the harm done them and never their part in it.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:02 am“Hey, just make sure you spell the name right.”
Dean Esmay (6a005a) — 7/7/2006 @ 2:32 amLA Times to “Push Back?”…
Having seen so much irresponsible reporting out of the Los Angeles Times this last year, why is it that I find myself delighted to learn that they plan to …
Dean's World (fa8fba) — 7/7/2006 @ 4:04 amYou know, Pat, not to beat a dead horse, but this (for me) goes along with my recent questions about the NYT and LAT running the SWIFT stories. At least, it goes to one of the arguments I tried to make to Actus. That is, that journalists have an extremely powerful weapon in their 1st Amendment protections. But along with that power goes responsibility and this seems completely irresponsible (talk about yellow journalism!). Sure, the LAT has the POWER to smack at its critics, but using it that way really does make it look petty and small. I hope its readers will see through it.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/7/2006 @ 5:00 amA swarm of hornets can sting a giant in a thousand places, pushing the giant in a particular direction; but the giant cannot push back the swarm. Any given hornet may be pushed, but the swarm remains. And if the giant smashes a hornet, the swarm only gets angrier.
You can’t push back a swarm.
Martin L. Shoemaker (b62247) — 7/7/2006 @ 5:31 amRather than seeing criticism as a positive thing … an opportunity to improve his product, apparently he views critics — not just as opponents — but as enemies. It’s a byproduct of the “us versus them” mentality that is, sadly, so prevalent in the national discourse today.
aunursa (821db8) — 7/7/2006 @ 6:06 amI can’t imagine “push-back”, even if it’s in the paper would do anything other than improve the paper: isn’t debate a good thing?
My fondest wish is that, if there’s going to be a debate, it could be conducted on honest terms and the paper should start by abandoning this silly pretense of “impartiality”. What is with that anyway? Do they teach in journalism school that papers should adopt this guise, and therebye avoid as much debate over what they do and say as possible? Not only is it dishonest, it makes papers boring, staid, mediocre and financially unsuccessful. Like the Times (both of them!).
MTf (a6fe46) — 7/7/2006 @ 6:27 amAnswering critics with disdain? Tuning out criticism? This is merely an electronic version of what the Times and the MSM have been doing for decades.
Dean Baquet plans to belittle critics in print? In other news, water is wet.
The Hound (678389) — 7/7/2006 @ 7:05 amwhat the hell can they possibly do to you?
assistant devil's advocate (593ba6) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:10 amthis is classic asymmetric warfare, little blogs versus a giant paper. the paper has more to lose, further to fall.
If you cannot run with the big boys, stay on the porch. This post is a whiiiiiiiiine from a fellow who hammers LAT regularly — a whole “dog trainer” category with a little “dog trainer” logo.
Don Surber (1e4911) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:17 amIncredibly lame, Patterico
I’ll tell you the real threat to freedom: Some assistant DA saying we shouldn’t prosecute newspapers — just yet
“Newspapers don’t know how to respond to critics.”
That’s because, until recently, newspapers have never HAD critics. The best the public could do was to write a letter to the editor, which of course allowed the paper to control he volume of its critics.
Newspapers (and TV et al) had a gentleman’s agreement NOT to criticize each other, being in the same boat and all. (When the Wall Street Journal recently ran a stinging rebuke of the NY Times’ leak of a US anti-terrorist program, commentators made note of how rare such criticism of a fellow newspaper was.)
The papers have always ‘pushed back’ against bloggers. They began with condescending coverage designed to relegate bloggers to second-class status. As blogging gained in popularity and acceptance, they ratcheted it up with allegations of bloggers ‘lower standards’ (as if).
Now they’re looking to both co-opt blogging mindshare (by starting their own blogs and using their clout to promote them) and destroy critical bloggers – at the same time. This won’t fly, because its the interconnection that makes blogging work. Trying to both squeeze them out and villify them will simply prolong newspapers’ isolation.
Mr. Snitch (12ed9a) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:28 amNever pick a fight with someone who buys pixels by the barrel.
inkling (b34465) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:28 amJust make sure they get your name right (and the name of your blog). That’s the ancient rule of publicity.
Many Times readers don’t know what the hell a blog is. The ones who do know will increase your traffic and public profile.
JohnH (a2dc36) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:33 am[…] Patterico detects lefty maliciousness of a greater magnitude in recent comments by L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet. Here’s the quote: Hiltzhik [sic] was a rare member of the Times to push back against Times critics. Dean says the Times should push back. He’s not sure that such pushback should only be online. “Newspapers don’t know how to respond to critics.” […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » New world record set in left’s Jeff Goldstein hate-lympics (d4224a) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:33 amAnn Coulter wondered how much time the New York Times spends trying to uncover jihadi plots as opposed to, say, revealing classified intelligence programs. Now I gather the LA Times would rather fight bloggers than go after the jihadis. I suppose the former sounds better for striking a pose of patriotic “dissent” while the latter might involve putting something on the line in return for the precious freedoms bequeethed to the press.
Flea (53012a) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:34 amA paper’s stock in trade is entertainment.
Push back might be good entertainment.
M. Simon (2e96bd) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:40 amLoose Lips, Sinking Ships, and the Fourth Estate…
Update (7/7): Patterico chronicles his ongoing tussle with LA Times editor Dean Baquet.
La Shawn Barber's Corner (1b383c) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:43 amUpdate (7/4): Michelle responds to critics: “This blog says spokespeople for Rumsfeld and Cheney are denying any security threat from the publication of the…
Aside from their anti-Bush agenda, which already overrides any sense of protecting their own worthless lives, the Times will only reveal information that people with security clearances and a grudge bring to them. They are too lazy to do any actual investigating themselves. Footwork is not for them. Hey, they went to Journalism School!
Korla Pundit (a5d107) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:44 amIt is too bad the “no lying” standard is not applied equally to all NY Times and LA Times journalists.
On another note, after running the LA Times into the ground, have been trying to destroy the Chicago Tribune as well. I don’t know what can help the Tribune company, but when it’s the Chandler’s against the rest of the board, my bet is on the rest of the board.
Pluto's Dad (fcbef1) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:44 am[…] UPDATDE: Maybe I should tone down the criticism of Mrs. White. I might earn me some of that push back. […]
Houblog » Blog Archive » Friday Morning Roundup (f571cc) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:45 amYou Can Blow Out A Candle, But You Can’t Blow Out A Fire…
Frequent L.A. Times critic Patterico writes:I read something disturbing last night about the way the editor of the L.A. Times views criticism of his newspaper. Apparently, editor Dean Baquet sees criticism as something to push back against. And, he…
Ed Driscoll.com (47121e) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:49 amWhile reading about the laughable LA Times and listening the local classical station, the Dudly DoRight theme (from the Rocky the Squirrel show) happened to play. How appropriate. The paper has about as much believability as Dudly. At least Dudly was honest. Let the LA times try to compete with the net. Sorta like GM trying to compete with Toyota. Pshaw.
Da Coyote (4d15b9) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:01 amIn the interest of fairness, one could ask if the Times plans to strike back at its critics on the far left.
After their recent editorial defending Joe Lieberman, they’ve surely been mailbombed by the Kossacks. Moveon.org activists attempted to crash a Tribune Co. stock analysts meeting to try to present their petitions protesting budget cuts to Trib Chairman Dennis FitzSimmons.
When columnist Robert Scheer was dropped, Moveon and local lefties went ballistic, trying to organize mass subscription canceling.
The criticism from Patterico and Hewitt has been positively genteel when compared with the hysterical invective hurled by the left.
Dennis Mosher (47031d) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:04 amI’m not sure I’m following this.
You criticize the LA Times. The Times criticzes you back (potentially).
Oh the horrors…run for the hills.
WTF?
Brian Carnell (4a84cc) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:14 amNew York Times Distorts Military Story…
In this story from today’s NY Times we are all but told that Army recruiters are filling the ranks with White Supremacists – courtesy of a Times that obviously simply published a press release from the Southern Poverty Law Center,…
Riehl World View (72c8fd) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:22 amAgreed, and also suspect that you and Glenn Reynolds don’t understand what “push-back” means in MBA-speak. It’s simply expressing disagreement, and doesn’t have any overtone of hostility, let alone threat.
JSinger (9a11b0) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:32 ampuhsback
what the heck is wrong with the LA Times ‘pushing back’ against bloggers or anyone who criticizes them? all’s fair…
in truth, given the paper’s past clumsiness in both tone and credibility when it responds to critics, this may prove more an exercise in self-immolation than flame throwing
schrage (1b48d7) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:42 amWhat Lopez doesn’t get is that his paper pretends to be objective, but isn’t, and comparing bloggers to that standard isn’t reasonable, since we’re open with our biases.
John Carroll, the guy the Tribune replaced with Baquet, explained it better:
I doubt Steve Lopez much cared for this, and is far happier now that the new editor has called for just such a push.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/7/2006 @ 9:46 am“Pushback” conducted in the pages of the LA Times would be great.
Lots of readers wondering who this “Patterico” guy is and thinking, hey, maybe I out to check out that site and see what all the fuss is about.
Yeah, sure, go ahead and throw him in that briarpatch!
Jeremiah Bullfrog (a3e84f) — 7/7/2006 @ 10:23 amThey shouldn’t stop there. They should also “push back” at readers who are cancelling subscriptions, and people who write angry letters to the editor. I suggest some sort of addictive/explosive ink, and an RFID chip that can be used to detonate it.
TallDave4 (feb278) — 7/7/2006 @ 10:53 amYou’ve got to be loving this. Push back? Like the childish remark about Hugh Hewitt? I suspect you can endure. You’ve mastered the power of the link…a mystery your MSM counterparts in this asymetric engagement can only look upon with wide-eyed wonder.
Rejoice! Anything they try to do to “push back” will only push your site meter stats up.
Gunga (9734c8) — 7/7/2006 @ 11:02 amAre you saying that the LAT has formulated or is formulating an “enemies list” that includes you ?
Neo (cba5df) — 7/7/2006 @ 11:30 amToday in a front page article on North Korea
Scott Orrell (dd2056) — 7/7/2006 @ 12:13 pm“Nevetheless, the report still bounces around the internet, a favorite of conservative blog sites”
Never names one. AND bad writing. A twofer.
Blogging from glass houses…
Patterico says the sky is falling down because the LA Times might answer its blog critics. His blog has a whole LA Dog Trainer section (get it?). I guess he suffers the delusion that he is beyond criticism….
Don Surber (59ce3a) — 7/7/2006 @ 12:21 pmThe fact that Steve Lopez referred to Hewitt as a “doddering” shill speaks volumes about Lopez’s mindset–but not much about Hewitt. Hewitt can be accused of being a shill–but whatever else he is, he’s not doddering. And if Lopez can’t figure that out, his reputation as an “ace” reporter should be in tatters.
Mark Twain supposedly said that you should never pick a fight with someone who buys his printing ink by the barrel, but in the days of the Internet, a blogger like Patterico can take the Times on in a pretty evenly matched contest.
The blogger is nimble; the media giant, like most of the media giants, displays an unerring tendency to shoot itself in the foot. In that sense, it’s an unfair contest, advantage blogger. I don’t see that the Times has knocked anyone off Patterico’s vast staff–and Patterico has already potted Hiltzik (and got the additional benefit of cancelling P’s subscription to the Dog Trainer).
Based on that, I can’t figure out why Patterico isn’t saying to Baquet “Bring it on!”
Mike Myers (290636) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:14 pm“Push Back” in MBA speak is going to war in the press. Destroy your opponent or his argument by whatever means you have available.
It means talking to your former employers, girlfriends/spouses, landlords, your kid’s friends, their teachers, your neighbors, your mailman, the clerk at the local video store. It’s running your credit history and a criminal background check. It’s digging up any speck of dirt you’ve left behind. Until Pellicano was busted it included tapping your phone.
The problem is that the LAT still thinks it’s got an advantage in the “push back” game. They think they buy ink by the barrel, and all that comes with that, like researchers and access to databases. They don’t understand that while they’re buying discounted volume ink, we get ours for free. They have paid researchers on staff that work 8 to 5. We get ours as volunteers that pop up the moment they’re needed, work 18 hour days and who’s only payment is the joy of the hunt. (See Rathergate).
The Times “pushing back” against the blogospehre is going to be about as effective as holding back the incomming tide by threatening it with a spear.
Richard R (cd99f7) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:15 pmI apologize for misreading the Hiltzik part of the post. But, man, why can’t the LAT respond in print if it wants?
Be flattered!
You are a David, they are Goliath and playing at your level.
don surber (f7ace7) — 7/7/2006 @ 2:21 pmAnd one last thing, judging from LAT editorials, you have nothing to flipping fear!
don surber (f7ace7) — 7/7/2006 @ 2:25 pm“But Luke Ford appears to have been taking notes.” – Patterico
Who takes Luke Ford seriously?
I know this is Hollywood. And we appreciate how the Patterico sitemeter will peg.
But still…
steve (9db8b0) — 7/7/2006 @ 3:13 pmHe’s talking about using a newspaper read by almost a million people to “push back” against . . . bloggers.
That would be too sweet. Can you imagine the traffic you’d get? And with the ability to post updates and counter-arguments by the minute, the Times would seem as nimble as a beached whale.
Perhaps Baquet, like Jim Carroll before him, has risen to the peak of his profession, confident in the assumptions that got him there, without looking down to see that the structure of the industry has fundamentally changed.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 7/7/2006 @ 3:26 pmDoes Dan Baquet, (it’s BACK-ay), have a sister named Hyacinth?
/ little sister with mighty mouth (and better brothers), considering the potential root causes of Dan’s sensitivity …
The powerful American press needs bloggers to hold them accountable today. No one else can or will.
American troops need bloggers to set the world straight when reporters are unable or unwilling to tell the difference between terrorists and US Marines.
“The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable: They simply emphasize the enemy’s victories and our losses.” – Thomas Sowell, “The media’s war”
“Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists.” – C.S. Lewis, “Why I am not a Pacifist”
Perhaps American reporters prefer minders.
ghost (d25f09) — 7/7/2006 @ 3:29 pmPatterico –
Newspapers did use to have critics that served to keep them “relatively honest” or, at least, to serve as a check or deterrent against the worst of the excesses. Those critics were their intra-city newspaper competitors. Few cities still have more than one major newspaper and the concentration of papers and media in the hands of relatively few (compared to a few decades ago) let them drift into their current mindset.
The net and blogs have arisen essentially to fill that ecological niche in the information environment.
I must confess that I interpreted the LAT person’s words to mean that distortion was okay, slanting was expected, and spinning was normal, but getting CAUGHT in a lie that could not be shrugged off as merely an error was not LAT acceptable.
jim (016107) — 7/7/2006 @ 3:44 pmTo give an idea of the mindset of the LA Times and their “pushback” against blogs, here is the email discussion I had with Al martinez. Note his open-mindedness and humbleness:
——————————
(a) no. we need a third party. (b) not recently.
—–Original Message—–
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Martinez, Al [Pine]
Sent: 7/2/2006 11:36 AM
Subject: question
Dear Mr. Martinez:
I have read your columns as long as I have lived out here. I have
two questions:
A) Do you believe in the two-party system?
B) Do you have anything good to write about local Republicans running
for office?
I have a bet riding on the fact that you have nothing good to say about
any Republican below Governor (and even then you don’t have anything
good to say). Also, I doubt that you know your AD Central Committee
members from the GOP side, your articles tend to dismiss anyone who has
a different opinion then you.
This is a bet I would like to lose.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Fein
JSF (d8da01) — 7/7/2006 @ 4:14 pmVisit Valley of the Shadow
Don S., no doubt everything you don’t agree with is a “whine,” but it seems to me that you’re missing the point.
The LAT treats the facts as irrelevant. This “pushback” is just another example, as it simply ignores criticism of its lies & omissions in the past and instead goes on the offensive with ad hominem attacks that add nothing to any debate.
Kinda like your post.
Bostonian (a37519) — 7/7/2006 @ 4:21 pm[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Pathetic Paper Pummels Pugnacious Pontificator Patterico: Pushback Perpetrated (1b383c) — 7/7/2006 @ 4:50 pmIts a far cry from the days when folks like myself were actually invited onto the papers own op-ed pages to make our criticisms heard.
You mean, days like last Sunday?
It might also be worth mentioning that the op-ed pages do not report to Dean Baquet.
Finally, though I certainly wasn’t there, I note that Luke Ford didn’t use quotes on the words “push back.” You might want to ask him if that was a paraphrase or not before treating it as verbatim.
[Matt, I have independent corroboration that the phrase was used. — P]
Matt Welch (0ce265) — 7/7/2006 @ 6:13 pmMatt Welch, Comment #46 wrote:
“Finally, though I certainly wasn’t there, I note that Luke Ford didn’t use quotes on the words “push back.” You might want to ask him if that was a paraphrase or not before treating it as verbatim.”
Well, why didn’t his editor ask him?
nk (5a2f98) — 7/7/2006 @ 6:52 pmI retract my previous comment #47 with apologies to Mr. Welch and everyone else here. I had ignorantly assumed that Luke Ford worked for LAT.
nk (77d95e) — 7/7/2006 @ 7:18 pm“I had ignorantly assumed that Luke Ford worked for LAT.” – nk
Luke Ford came into his own as chronicler of the porn world, cheerily publishing unchecked and damaging gossip which resulted in a couple legal settlements (#39).
Think Danny DeVito’s ‘Sid Hudgens’ character in LA Confidential.
“Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush…”
steve (8fa5f3) — 7/7/2006 @ 8:09 pmThank you, Steve Comment #49. I am totally embarassed by my ignorant, smart-alecky comment to Mr. Welch. I should have double-checked first and commented second.
nk (f58916) — 7/8/2006 @ 6:01 amLet the newspapers “fight back” and we hardcore bloggers will crush them every time. Our triumphalism will win the day, I guarantee.
Newspapers are just ankle biters. They’re already, deservedly dead. Have you ever witnessed an event, then read the newspaper report on it? I rest my case.
Love to see them squirm, the morbid MSM schmucks. Die already, you outmoded, inaccurate Old Media.
vaspers the grate of the blogosFEAR (1f48bb) — 7/8/2006 @ 7:26 am[…] The L.A. Times is launching an all-out offensive against bloggers and critics, starting with Hugh Hewitt. No doubt they’ll win a Pulitzer (who gives those out anyway, Karl Marx?). Posted by Ian S. in […]
Inoperable Terran » It’s easier than fixing the real problems (dacd80) — 7/8/2006 @ 12:34 pmBy the way, there is audio of Baquet’s interview. See the UPDATE. Was the phrase “push back” used? Oh, yes it was. Many, many times.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/8/2006 @ 11:51 pmSo, the LAT is going to “push back” against the blogosphere? As said before: Bring It On! The only thing they will “accomplish” will be the deconstruction of the Tribune Co’s, and possibly, their own entry into Chapter 11 (though 7 would be better deserved).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/9/2006 @ 2:41 pmI can’t wait to relieve myself on their grave, dude.
vaspers the grate of the blogosFEAR (1f48bb) — 7/11/2006 @ 6:51 pm[…] 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.) […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Still Nothing from Baquet — But We’ll Be Working on the Transcript (421107) — 7/14/2006 @ 12:14 am