Backed up to the wall by an always-critical Patrick "Patterico" Frey and seemingly nailed to it with IP-address evidence, Hiltzik actually confesses that he has posed as someone else so as to post positive comments about his own blog posts.
Then he acts like nothing's wrong with it ...
Frey evidently pored through the IP addresses of comments on his blog to discover that sometimes I commented under my own name, and sometimes under a pseudonym. He noticed that this is a pseudonym I’ve used on other occasions. He pats himself on the back (so to speak) for his brilliant sleuthing.
He seems to think that pseudonymous posting is deceptive, though he can’t articulate why that should be, given the abundance of pseudonyms and anonymity on his own blog starting with the name on the banner....
Sure, posting comments under nicknames is deceptive - people do it all the time because they don't want anyone - their bosses, the authors they're criticizing, the rest of the infosphere - to know their full names for various reasons they generally keep to themselves. It's common practice.
But is Hiltzik actually arguing that pseudonymous posting by the blogger himself posing as someone else in comments on his own writing is NOT DECEPTIVE, let alone somehow okay?
It is, at the very least, pathetic. Whether it rises to the level of a Brian Walski-grade truth-doctoring crime will probably be up to the Times editors to decide.
UPDATE: The Times has shut down posting for Hiltzik's blog. LAObserved posts the story (and takes credit for the Times' review?)
The notice says:
The Times has suspended Michael Hiltzik’s Golden State blog on latimes.com. Hiltzik admitted Thursday that he posted items on the paper’s website, and on other websites, under names other than his own. That is a violation of The Times ethics guidelines, which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public. The policy applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper. The Times is investigating the postings.
Interesting that the post saying this has no comments yet. But of course, they're all screened in the first place ...
Meanwhile, the comments on Hiltzik's sadly clueless post about the gaffe are, by turns, withering, dismissive and hilarious:
Sir, Mr. Frey unmasked your phantom supporters for what they were by following a trail of data you left in very public places. He hasn't invaded your privacy at all.
Thanks for being the subject of a very funny story, though....
In effect, you're accusing him of being a peeping tom when in fact you've been walking around with your fly open.
Posted by: Mack_Reed on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:32 AM
