Bill O’Reilly let loose on the L.A. Times tonight:

(Via Hot Air.)

I stopped watching Bill O’Reilly a long time ago, but he’s good for one thing: righteously laying into someone with passion and anger. When there are goons who laugh about people’s deaths — whether they are Ted Rall, or commenters at the L.A. Times web site (posting with the permission of comment moderators) — you need someone with O’Reilly’s attitude to take them to task.

Well done.

In related news, Howard Kurtz had an online chat today. Over the weekend, I submitted a question, asking whether he would be noting the ugly comments at the L.A. Times web site, the way he had pointedly noted ugly comments at Michelle Malkin’s site about Ted Kennedy.

My comment didn’t make it onto the chat, but this one did — and Kurtz basically said: what ugly comments?

Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Mr. Kurtz, you were upset when bloggers said cruel things about Ted Kennedy’s cancer — rightly so. What do you have to say about those doing the same thing with Tony Snow?

washingtonpost.com: As Good as His Words: Spokesman Tony Snow Earned Press’s Respect (Post, July 14)

Howard Kurtz: I would say it’s outrageous, but I haven’t personally seen any examples. I’m not saying that Snow’s life and career should be above criticism because of his death. We don’t need to sanitize the lives of those who pass away. But crude and hateful comments about someone who’s just died should be shunned.

This means that a) my question to him was not passed along to Kurtz; b) he didn’t read his e-mail this morning, since I e-mailed the same comment to him last night via this contact page; and c) he didn’t read Instapundit (or Little Green Footballs) this morning.

I think after O’Reilly’s blast, Kurtz is going to have a hard time saying he didn’t see any of this.

L.A. Observed reports that David Hiller is out as L.A. Times publisher, and layoffs begin today.

Grim times at the newspaper we love to hate.

The L.A. Times can’t (or won’t) tell us that Hiller’s exit was not voluntary. From the L.A. Times story:

Los Angeles Times Publisher David Hiller resigned today after a 21-month tenure that included the departure of two Times editors and plans for the sharpest staff and production cuts in the newspaper’s history amid a continuing slide in advertising revenue.

So he wasn’t fired . . . he resigned? It doesn’t even say the company “claimed” he resigned. It just says he did.

Well, I guess if anyone should know, it would be the L.A. Times. They have access to their own publisher, and they wouldn’t report something as fact if it weren’t locked down tight. That’s just the type of news organization they are.

Except, let’s look at Hiller’s departure memo:

When I told my mother that Sam wanted to see me this morning, she said do you think he wants to make you CEO of the whole company? You see where a lot of my optimism comes from. By now you have also heard that Sam had other ideas and I will be leaving The Times. Sams the boss and he gets to pick his own quarterback.

Resigned, eh?

When it’s Truth vs. Spin, Spin wins every time.

UPDATE: Speaking of which, I’m told the word around the newsroom is that Chuck Philips has been asked to leave. Hardly surprising in light of the paper’s retraction, and Philips’s failure to publish a story since.

Also, maybe they know there are shoes yet to drop.

Last night I became publicly annoyed at L.A. Times blogger Andrew Malcolm after I thought he had accused me of hypocrisy (scroll down to see why, if you care). So I suppose I should just as prominently note that we have figuratively shaken hands and made up. I sent Malcolm an e-mailed peace offering over lunch and he responded very warmly and graciously. I believe we just had a misunderstanding.

All cleared up now, and forgotten.

I should note that I have had his blog in my daily reads for several weeks now, and (this latest kerfuffle aside) I always enjoy it.

I have nothing to say about either one, but I’m sure you do.

The New Yorker cover: satire or “scare tactic”?

Obama’s op-ed: a plan for success or pandering with escape valves?

Discuss.

When is using the word “dick” OK at the L.A. Times?

Well, it depends.

If you’re using the word to insult a guy who just died, you can get your comment approved — at least until an annoying blogger points it out.

But if you use the term to describe people who are mocking the man who just died, apparently that violates their standards.

You think I’m kidding? The first comment left in the L.A. Times‘s blog post was by a fellow named Alessandro, who said: “You picked a nice picture for your tribute.” A subsequent commenter left a comment — approved by a moderator — that I memorialized in this post:

Yes Alessandro I agree. The one of him with the horns made him look like a total dick.

Posted by: Chad | July 12, 2008 at 04:28 PM

Several other commenters left comments saying they hoped Snow had suffered (see here for details), prompting me to leave this comment:

Anyone who would say they hope Tony Snow suffered is a dick.

That comment, oddly enough, was never approved.

Oh, I can’t end the post without the irony. Andrew Malcolm — the guy who defended the decision to approve these comments — later accused me of . . . hypocrisy!

This came on the heels of Marc Cooper calling the commenters at my site “bitter” and “angry.”

Guys, there’s only so much irony I can take in one weekend. Enough already!

Thanks to Jim.

P.S. They have removed the post by Chad.

UPDATE: Malcolm comments and says that he was accusing the commenter of hypocrisy, and not me.

There has been some reaction to my posts yesterday about the vicious comments at the L.A. Times web site about Tony Snow’s death. (If you haven’t read my posts on this filth, start here and here. But steel yourself before you do. It’s really awful.)

Charles Johnson and Glenn Reynolds linked one my posts on the topic, as did Kevin Roderick, who quotes the L.A. Times Terms of Service, which theoretically prohibit any “user content” that:

* contains vulgar, profane, abusive, racist or hateful language or expressions, epithets or slurs, text, photographs or illustrations in poor taste, inflammatory attacks of a personal, racial or religious nature.

* is defamatory, threatening, disparaging, grossly inflammatory, false, misleading, fraudulent, inaccurate, unfair, contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims, violates the privacy rights of any third party, is unreasonably harmful or offensive to any individual or community.

[skip]

* “flames” any individual or entity (e.g., sends repeated messages related to another user and/or makes derogatory or offensive comments about another individual), or repeats prior posting of the same message under multiple threads or subjects.

(My emphasis.) Much of that certainly seems to apply.

If you’re an L.A. Times blogger, what are you to do?

The answer should be obvious: attack the messenger.

Yup, that’s right. After defending himself in a comment at my site (discussed in this post), L.A. Times blogger Andrew Malcolm re-emerged in my comments section — this time to attack yours truly, by labeling me a hypocrite:

(more…)