Not A Great Moment For Blogs

Guess this is one of those times when I'll split from many blogs on the right. It seems Patterico went crawling through his commenter IP's and found out an LA Times blogger commented both anonymously and also publicly on his blog.

Big whoop. Get a freakin' life. Unfortunately, now the LA Times has suspended the blog for ethics violations.

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 policy, 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.

That journalistic policy is geared toward ensuring a reporter doesn't set someone up for a story, or quotes by not identifying themselves as a reporter. What's the message there? That police officers commenting on blogs when they are off duty need to tell everyone they are carrying guns as required by many department's regulations?

The fact is, it is a personal embarassment for the LA Times guy that he would need to resort to a non de plume to mix it up. It implies he wasn't willing to take personal responsibility for some of his fretting and fuming in comments on a blog. But I see that as a personal failing, far more than some professional violation of one's ethics.

How many major newspaper editors have given a false name while drunk and hitting on some barfly or hooker at a news convention? Don't everyone raise your hands at once, fellas. There might not be any news desk left.

If you ask me, all it suggests is that maybe Assistant Los Angeles District Attorneys are over paid and under worked, or simply have too much time on their hands. I hope he didn't do any of that research on LA taxpayer time.

No, of course not - that wouldn't be ethical. What a joke blogs are at times. Exactly what is it that anyone involved won, besides maybe some petty pissing match? I can't seem to quite figure that one out.

Comments

[gahrie]

You didn't read deep enough. His "crime" was not that he used a nom de plume. This is commonly accepted, and defended by Frey (Patterico) in his post.What he did was create at least two alternate nicknames that he used to comment on, and endorse, comments he made in his primary persona. (commonly referred to as using a sock puppet) As an example, if I posted later in this thread under a different name, saying what a great comment gahrie wrote, or posted on another blog under a different name saying "go look at gahrie's comment at Riehl World View.", I would be sock puppeting.

[Dan]

I would be sock puppeting.

Um, yeah ... so? As I said, it's a personal failing, not a professional one IMO. Big scoop. The LA Times employs a sock puppet. Geesh, the MSM has a million of 'em. LOL

I guess it's fair enough for Patterico to note it in a tit for tat sort of, you know, childisn and immature way many of us bloggers can have about us sometimes. LOL

But I do regret seeing it cross over to taking a blog offline by the Times. If I pulled some of Pattericos old comments from here, it would hardly make him look good as an ADA.

[gahrie]

If it was his personal blog I would agree with you Dan. But when it is affiliated with the LA Times, a blog is (and should) held to higher standards. At that point, professional and journalistic ethics come into play. Sock puppeting is a pretty clear violation of both of these. You would have no problem with the LA Times suspending a writer who made up a source, or spoke to another reporter under an assumed name supporting an article he wrote.