L.A. Times Editor Has Never Heard of the “bcc” Line
We knew L.A. Times editors were clueless about the Internet, but this is ridiculous:
Last night I wrote about L.A. Times editor David Lauter’s mass e-mail poorly justifying the paper’s failure to cover the 8000 – 15,000 person anti-tax rally hosted by John and Ken. A commenter to that post left the following amusing comment:
In reading your post and the comments, there is a fact missing that’s important. The editor David Lauter did send the response you cited to all that wrote him an email complaining about the lack of coverage. I received it. But, what he did do, was send it as a mass mailing to all that sent him a comment. In other words, I received his reply with hundreds of email addresses including mine in the list in the email.
Now, I asked myself, why do that? Save time for him? Uhh…embarrass those that wrote? Uhh…put us on a spam list?
Well since I received his reply, I am now getting all kinds of spam. Thanks David! I can only hope the LA Times goes BK.
I wrote the commenter and confirmed his claim. The commenter has now had to set up an elaborate spam-fighting process, which I had to negotiate to get the e-mail through: first my e-mail was returned as undeliverable, then I forwarded to someone who white-listed my address, and then sent it again.
Who wants to be the one to explain the “bcc” line to David Lauter?
It must have been caught up in all the layers of editors they have. At least they probably know what an embryo is.
Do they ?? Bill Clinton doesn’t.MIke K (2cf494) — 3/12/2009 @ 8:38 pm
Fine fine… I’ll do it…
Lemme go get my list of swear words…Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 3/12/2009 @ 8:39 pm
They wouldn’t be dinosaurs of media if they understood the world as it is.Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/12/2009 @ 8:40 pm
He’s just a horses ass. I wouldn’t expect anything less from the LA Slimes. Go BK, go BK fast, go BK hard all you liberal hacks. Justice will be mine sayeth the Lord.J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 3/12/2009 @ 8:41 pm
Actually, I’d say it’s negligent to give your email address to someone who hates you (i.e., anyone who works at the LAT)Daryl Herbert (b65640) — 3/12/2009 @ 9:28 pm
It’s Times like these when I miss krazy kagu.carlitos (3f0da9) — 3/12/2009 @ 9:38 pm
Is there any reason why we do not just start entering this clown’s email address at various websites?JD (abe6ab) — 3/12/2009 @ 9:51 pm
What was said in the reply? Not that it really matters.Chris (a24890) — 3/12/2009 @ 11:11 pm
Multiple layers of editing and fact-checking…..Techie (9c008e) — 3/13/2009 @ 8:54 am
If they don’t get real life, and they don’t get the Internet… what do they get? (Besides fired.)Jim Treacher (796deb) — 3/13/2009 @ 11:16 am
“…what do they get? (Besides fired).”
A sinecure in the Obama Administration.AD - RtR/OS (5c10b1) — 3/13/2009 @ 11:30 am
Let’s be fair – BCC is a full 2 tabs from “To,” so it’s not exactly in the heart of the LA Times coverage zone.carlitos (3f0da9) — 3/13/2009 @ 11:33 am
i would offer to do the corrective training, but that would violate the “Pig Rule”
“Never try to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 3/13/2009 @ 10:25 pm
I was on the receiving end of a mass-email screwup like that recently. I also received the inevitable clueless mass-emailed replies chiding the sender. I replied they were doing the exact same thing and please leave me out of it.
And yes, I made darn sure I didn’t make the same mistake in my replies.Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/14/2009 @ 1:27 pm
[…] of angry readers in one e-mail — and failed to use a “bcc” line, meaning he shared each angry reader’s e-mail address with all the others. If you’re thinking: “What a moron!” then you have plenty of […]Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32) — 1/1/2010 @ 11:09 am