By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 21, 2006
8:00 AM
The Los Angeles Times suspended the blog of one of its top columnists last night, saying he violated the paper's policy by posting derogatory comments under an assumed name.
The paper said in an online editor's note that Michael Hiltzik, a Pulitzer Prize winner who writes the Golden State column, had admitted posting remarks on both his Times blog and on other Web sites under names other than his own. The Times said it is investigating the matter. Editor Dean Baquet declined comment, and Hiltzik said he could not comment.
The deceptive postings grew out of a running feud between Hiltzik and conservative bloggers in southern California. One is Hugh Hewitt, a radio talk show host and blogger. The other is an assistant Los Angeles district attorney named Patrick Frey, who maintains a blog under the name Patterico's Pontifications.
When commenters on Frey's Web site criticized Hiltzik, the Times writer responded by defending himself in remarks posted under the name "Mikekoshi."
Frey wrote that "the evidence is overwhelming that he has used more than one pseudonym. Hiltzik and his pseudonymous selves have echoed each other's arguments, praised one another, and mocked each other's enemies. All the while, Hiltzik's readers have been unaware that (at a minimum) the acid-tongued 'Mikekoshi' . . . is in fact Hiltzik himself."
Frey cited other examples. On another local blog called L.A. Observed, he noted, "Mikekoshi" described Los Angeles writer Cathy Seipp "as a 'tool' and as someone 'hampered by her own ignorance.'"
On Frey's site, "Mikekoshi" said of Hewitt: "The prospect of having Hugh Hewitt running around loose in public without a muzzle should make any intelligent person nervous."
"Mikekoshi" has also ripped Frey, writing, "Congratulations, Patterico, for a new high-water mark in dopey criticism," and "What a buffoonish post this is."
The public sniping has been just as antagonistic. Hewitt took a swipe this week at the Times's corporate parent, the Tribune Co., for a dip in profits and circulation. Hiltzik responded on his blog that Hewitt's Web traffic is down because "his peculiar brand of reactionary conservatism has become increasingly marginalized on the fringes of American political life."
Hewitt last night called the Times editor's note "very, very clever. It states the 'offense' is misrepresenting identity to the public, not the publication of false identities and the manipulation of opinions so as to influence opinions. Are they digging into all of Hiltzik's stories? All of the purported comments on his blog?. . . . It does seem like a question of a how huge media institution will treat deception within its product."
Hiltzik and a Times colleague shared a 1999 Pulitzer for beat reporting for exposing corruption in the entertainment industry.
On his Times blog, before the editor's note appeared, Hiltzik seemed to dismiss Frey's complaint: "This is amusing, because most of the comments posted on his website are anonymous or pseudonymous . . . Anonymity for commenters is a feature of his blog, as it is of mine. It's a feature that he can withdraw from his public any time he wishes. He has chosen to do that in one case only, and we might properly ask why. The answer is that he's ticked off that someone would disagree with him."
The editor's note said that Times policy, both in print and online, is for "editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public."
My knee-jerk reaction yesterday was to blame the networks for lavishing too much attention on a Chinese protester who disrupted the meeting between Hu Jintao and George W. Bush.
Why, after all, should one shouting woman be allowed to hijack the media spotlight at a get-together of two world leaders?
But that was before I learned that the White House had admitted the Falun Gong sympathizer, Wenyi Wang, as a member of the press (I sure wouldn't want to be the desk officer who okayed that one). And that this pseudo-journalist was therefore able to mar a meeting that had been carefully planned for a year. And that the Chinese considered this a major embarrassment, and that Chinese television went to black when she started shouting, and the Chinese newspapers wouldn't write about it.
That, my friends, is a story.
And by the way, why did it take the Secret Service nearly three agonizing minutes to arrest her?
New York's Daily News has a great headline: "Gong Show."
Epoch Times put out this statement about Wang: "Her actions this morning were her own. In protesting in this manner, she did not act on behalf of The Epoch Times. Moreover, she had not consulted any of her Epoch Times colleagues beforehand about her staging this protest. If The Epoch Times had known of her intention to use this event to protest, we would have seen that her press credentials were withdrawn. The Epoch Times apologizes to President Bush and the White House for Dr. Wang's actions."
I guess the Chinese also understand damage control.
"President Bush and President Hu Jintao of China, meeting for the first time at the White House today, pledged closer cooperation on fighting nuclear proliferation and addressing their massive trade imbalance," says the New York Times. "But they broke little new ground on a host of disputes that have strained the relationship between the countries in recent years."
Third graf: "A carefully choreographed welcome ceremony for Mr. Hu on the South Lawn was interrupted by an activist of the Falun Gong religious sect who managed to join the event as a reporter for the organization's United States-based newspaper, Epoch Times.
"The protester screamed about China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and partially drowned out Mr. Hu during his opening remarks before security officers managed to remove her from a press podium, leaving Mr. Bush, standing side-by-side with Mr. Hu, visibly angered."
Lots of online chatter about the White House staff shakeup. Weekly Standard Editor Fred Barnes says don't count Rove out:
"The mainstream media may have trouble resisting the temptation to declare that Karl Rove has been demoted, but the truth is quite the contrary. By giving up his role as deputy White House chief of staff, Rove has been freed to do what he does best: shape big issues and develop strategies to win elections.
"In the mini-shuffle announced yesterday, Rove was a winner. No longer will he have to honcho a tedious policy process at the White House, which he's been doing in President Bush's second term. He now will resume the freewheeling role and significant, but limited, responsibilities he held during the first term. At the moment, he has two broad responsibilities: handling macro issues like taxes and immigration and planning for the election on November 7.
"When Rove's job change was announced, it spread fear among the immigrant groups that are lobbying for immigration reform. Initial press reports indicated he'd be giving up any policy role. Not so. Rove still has the assignment of working on a compromise on immigration legislation acceptable to Bush and to a majority of congressional Republicans.
"And by the way, Rove will have an even friendlier ally as White House chief of staff. The outgoing chief, Andy Card, was occasionally quoted as suggesting that Rove had amassed too much power at the White House. The new chief, Josh Bolten, appears not to feel that way and happens to be a close friend of Rove. . . .
"Bush hates to fire anyone, but he was forced to accept the fact that McClellan was ill equipped for the touchy press secretary's job."
If that's the case, it took him nearly three years.
Josh Marshall is in scoffing mode:
"I can't get past this point of, where are the new faces ?
"It's like they cannot take on anyone who hasn't a) already taken the Bush omerta or b) already works for Fox News."
Peggy Noonan ruminates about Bush's management style:
"George W. Bush, on the other hand, does not tolerate dissent, argument, bitter internal battles. He is the decider. He decides, and the White House carries through. He is loyal to his aides, who carry out his wishes. . . . His loyalty means they will most likely not be fired or leaked against, no matter what heat they take from the outside. And so his aides move forward with the sharpness and edge of those who know their livelihoods and status are secure. Bruce Bartlett has written of how, as a conservative economist, he was treated with courtesy by the Clinton White House, which occasionally sought out his views. But once he'd offered mild criticisms of the Bush White House he was shut out, and rudely, by Bush staffers. Why would they be like that? Because they believe that as a conservative, Mr. Bartlett owes his loyalty to the president. He thought his loyalty was to principles.
"There are many stories like this, from many others. It leaves friends on the outside having to self-censor or accept designation as The Enemy. It leaves a distinguished former government official and prominent Republican saying, in conversation, 'Those people aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, they're sucking it from a spigot!'"
At the Huffington Post, Ankush Khardori delivers a harsh appraisal of McClellan:
"His whole raison d'etre was to obfuscate, squelch, conceal and mask the truths reporters sought. To make things even more embarrassing, he was never actually an integral part of crafting these talking points or the administration's broader media strategy -- tasks which were primarily carried out by Dan Bartlett and Rove. McClellan's lack of any real verbal dexterity, moreover, was striking; he was never all that comfortable in front of cameras, and the man simply did not have an easy way with words. . . .
"Was he really all that bad? For supporters of the administration, McClellan must have been a godsend: His affectless, near-catatonic stare was the perfect representation of the contempt with which the White House regards the press, and the less information he gave to them, the better. For those of us who hold the controversial position that the President (or his press secretary) has an obligation to be honest about what the country's leader is up to, McClellan was not much of an improvement over the supremely arrogant Fleischer. But to fully understand McClellan, you had to understand that this was a man who was fundamentally and consistently out of the loop. Yes, he was routinely sent to the briefing room with half-truths and lies, but McClellan's tragic earnestness revealed that, on most occasions, he actually bought the spin that the White House was putting out. Flawed and inept as McClellan was, his obliviousness was ultimately his most consistent feature."
Michelle Cottle says she feels sorry for the guy:
"Clearly his tenure was more contentious than that of predecessor Ari Fleischer, in part because McClellan occupied the podium during more troubled times than Ari. But I also think McClellan had a harder time in the job because, deep down, he was more uncomfortable being dishonest. McClellan always looked strained and slightly gassy when dishing out whatever bologna the administration had fed him."
Gun Toting Liberal doesn't want one of the contenders to take McClellan's job:
"Tony Snow, despite being a dedicated Republican, seems to be a pretty classy guy, and I base that analysis strictly upon the class, respect, and dignity with which he has treated callers with opposing viewpoints on his talk radio show (yes, I am a talk radio fanatic - I listen to just about all of those guys and gals) the times I have listened in. I'd just hate to see this guy become the next 'villain' for the Administration, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do I suppose."
Newshog sees a slogan in the making:
"Fox is crowing the possibility that their talk radio host Tony Snow is among the front runners for the post. Bush should just appoint Fox in its entirety into a new position: White House Press Network. It would only make official what everyone has known for years."
Another shoe drops in the Page Six scandal:
"The New York Post's Page Six is terminating all freelance employees in a housecleaning triggered by the payola scandal surrounding the embattled gossip column," says the New York Daily News. One of them: caught-on-tape scribe Jared Paul Stern.
Jack Shafer says the NYT has been unfair to the Duke rape accuser.
"Sometimes vulgarity is not just acceptable but necessary in the workplace, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday as it threw out a sexual harassment case by a former assistant on the 'Friends' TV show.
"In a 7-0 ruling, the justices agreed with Warner Bros. Television Productions that trash talk is part of the creative process and that the studio and its writers could not be sued for raunchy writers' meetings."
I wonder if that applies to newspaper editorial meetings.
I think it's too much to read into any one year's Pulitzers, but Philly Daily News columnist Will Bunch (via Buzz Machine) makes some telling points:
"Not a single Pulitzer was awarded this year for what we would call old-school local enterprise reporting. Not one. By local enterprise reporting, we mean exposing a corrupt state or local official, or problems with a local institution like a hospital or a nursing home or a hazardous waste dump. (You can quibble about the outstanding coverage of San Diego congressman 'Duke' Cunningham, but he is a federal official caught up in D.C. scandals, while the Rocky Mountain News feature prize was for a Marine delivering bad news from Iraq, also a local twist on a national story.)
"That would be a disgrace in any year, but it's really bad now -- because newspapers are pretty much the last people left who can tell you when your mayor is on the take, or when development is choking your local reservoir. Local TV and radio don't have the staffing or the inclination, big media is too big, and bloggers and citizen journalists can help, but most don't have the time or the experience of a trained (and paid) investigative journalist. . . .
"It's sad, because while urban news organizations had slashed true enterprise reporting in the face of the job cuts, we are pathologically unable to stop covering the exact same stories that everyone else is . That was really driven home to me last winter, in the week after the Daily News lost some 25 staffers, or 19 percent of our employees. I was urgently dispatched to the Philadelphia courthouse because no one was present for the verdict in a case that had gotten a middling amount of local coverage.
"When I got there, there was also a reporter from the Inquirer, the leading radio news station, and another news outlet. We sat there twiddling out thumbs, listened to the same pronouncements from the bench, stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the hallways getting the same quotes from the defense lawyer, and the same quotes from an assistant DA.
"What a colossal waste of Philadelphia's journalism talent! Three of us should have been out in the neighborhoods or sifting through documents at City Hall, trying to scoop the other two while keeping Philly informed."
Note : In writing about newspapers that touted their own Pulitzers and mostly ignored other winners, I missed the fact that the Portland Oregonian ran a sidebar listing the other awards in addition to the paper's story about itself. One of the perils of reading papers online is you can miss things like that.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.