LAT Publisher Hiller to Run (Secret and Internal) Blog
L.A. Times publisher David Hiller is starting a blog. He sent an e-mail to the troops about it. Here’s the part I found funny:
From: Hiller, David
Sent: Wed Oct 10 16:06 2007
Subject: Publisher’s BlogFolks,
Taking up a suggestion a number of you have made, I have decided to do a blog about things going on at The Times and in our industry. It will be two-way, so you can post comments, give feedback and ask questions, and see what others are saying.
The Blog Homepage: http://blogger.latimes.com/
This is my first blog, so we’ll be experimenting together a bit.
We thought it would be good to start with a few guidelines:
* This is internal, just for us, so please don’t share the blog content outside the company.
It took about 2.3 seconds for that part to be violated. L.A. Observed published a same-day leak, here.
Well, keeping things inside the Spring Street walls is something Hiller likes to do — like when he kept under wraps the finding that Andres Martinez had done nothing wrong.
I’d ask him about that — except that the information about Martinez, like the blog, is apparently supposed to be internal only.
Of course, Mr. Hiller, the Martinez report is public knowledge now — as is the existence of your blog. It all leaked in no time flat.
So how’s about making it all public after all?
‘Cause I have a few questions for you. And I bet my readers do too.
Don’t you, readers?
I do. Like how the hell do you name a super secret blog’s subdomain: “blogger.latimes.com”?
This was your plan for keeping it secret?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/11/2007 @ 12:08 amStupid is as stupid does.
Old Coot (20ca0f) — 10/11/2007 @ 5:33 amHa! The link to this secret blog doesn’t work anymore. I was hoping to get into a legitimate converstation with Hiller. I wanted to see if he is honest as he thinks he is. I also wanted to ask him why he and his people have such a hard time admitting to their demonstrated liberal bias.
PCD (b47ba5) — 10/11/2007 @ 6:14 amAnd what exactly is wrong with in internal (not for public consumption) blog?
In EVERY enterprise, there is lots of communication that should not be shared outside of the organization. The LA Times in no different than the DA’s office or the my employer in that regard. The explosion of public blogs demonstrates how effective a communication mechanism they are, so why not use them for non-public communication?
tomjedrz (562284) — 10/11/2007 @ 6:48 amtomjedrz: maybe because it is a newspaper and has such a leftist bias!
Sue (4bbc46) — 10/11/2007 @ 8:45 amSue @ #5:
What does leftist bias have to do with whether it is OK for the LA Dog Trainer to have internal-use only blogs?
Patterico:
Do you have a problem with the LAT having things they don’t want to share with the public? Shouldn’t they be able to discuss un-released stories, internal projects, industry happenings, etc. without having to make it public? Why not a blog for this kind of stuff?
Anyone:
What am I missing here?
tomjedrz (562284) — 10/11/2007 @ 11:20 amtomjedrz, I see nothing wrong with an internal blog. I’ve worked in organizations that had similar things and it’s commendable.
I am just lampooning the publisher for choosing such an obvious ‘secret’ subdomain… and also, in a sense, for having so little control over his enterprise that they don’t respect him and immediately link whatever he says.
I don’t think that speaks well of the leakers, but it also says something for the LA Times.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/11/2007 @ 12:56 pmLA Times is great entertainment when you pick it up to laugh at its daily leftist spew on political topics. Sometimes you just want to know what’s going on, and when you do you go elsewhere. A blog of important facts the reporters leave out, for whatever reason, would be interesting.
Wesson (fd354d) — 10/11/2007 @ 7:12 pmWesson @ #8 …
“A blog of important facts the reporters leave out, for whatever reason, would be interesting.”
This site fills that very need!
tomjedrz (562284) — 10/12/2007 @ 7:05 am