Open Topic Sunday ... "Cry Havoc!"
Nothing starts off a Sunday of debate than to have one's two closest allies questioning him. Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but it's not everyday that one is jumped by his partners. (Not that I truly feel that way; only a fool would disdain the attention from two lovely and talented young ladies, and momma didn't raise no fool.)
To Sabrina:
I did contradict myself. Certainly, that was not my intention. However, she does point out that Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, can't be charged with a crime that doesn't technically exist for her. True that, and I sit corrected.
To Marcie:
Dear, sweet, loving Marcie; yes, I did change my mind on the subject of Michael Hiltzik. I changed my mind after thinking about it and sleeping on it Friday night. And I will explain why.
Hugh Hewitt's right. Why not leave him right where he is? He is the epitome of agenda journalism at the LA Times, and if they keep him there (which, by their own code of ethics, they should fire him) they're only reinforcing their embrace of agenda journalism for their readers. In other words, they don't really care, and would rather keep the status quo. That is what agenda journalism is all about.
A return to the status quo of six years ago, return to a pre-11 September world, and a return to the good old days where they had virtually unlimited access to the White House. Why? Because those were the golden days for journalism, then. Let's face it, the press is most displeased with what the US has become since 11 September. Stricter security measures, "pre-emptive" programs designed to protect the nation that are classified, and, obviously, the war.
Hiltzik is a hack. But he's probably the sort of hack that still generates readers for the LA Times. In the overall scheme of things, and much like radio, newspapers are driven by readers and advertisers. Now if the LA Times had more complaints against Hiltzik than praise (provided, of course, that none of his pseudonyms provided praise to the Times for him), or advertisers threatened to withdraw their dollars over him, then he'd be gone in a heartbeat. But I sincerely doubt either has happened. The "ratings" game, as it's played within newspapers, will keep him there regardless of what sort of ethics violation he may have committed.
We also have to give the Times some leeway. They claim they're investigating him and his breech of ethics. Give them time, and we'll see which way they decide to go. But with others at the Times taking cheap shots (like Tim Rutten, like Barbara Demick), why fire Hiltzik? He is only doing what he feels is right, and all too often, we see the Times "condoning" such actions when they don't fire these nutters.
In other words, keep giving that nut a keyboard, and let him spew. In the end I have no doubt that he will do himself in. (Actually, I got $20 that Patterico will do him in all on his own; he's slapped him around the last few months harder than any other blogger in the blogosphere.)
So the answer to Marcie's question is that I did have this change of heart yesterday morning, and it's all due to how the Times runs their ship. Hugh claims that the GOP is like the pre-hit Titanic right now--definitely heading for the berg, but still able to steer away from it.
The LA Times has already hit the thing, and is sinking fast. Hiltzik can't help them bail fast enough to avoid sinking, so he's up topside sitting in with the band.
Publius II
Nothing starts off a Sunday of debate than to have one's two closest allies questioning him. Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but it's not everyday that one is jumped by his partners. (Not that I truly feel that way; only a fool would disdain the attention from two lovely and talented young ladies, and momma didn't raise no fool.)
To Sabrina:
I did contradict myself. Certainly, that was not my intention. However, she does point out that Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, can't be charged with a crime that doesn't technically exist for her. True that, and I sit corrected.
To Marcie:
Dear, sweet, loving Marcie; yes, I did change my mind on the subject of Michael Hiltzik. I changed my mind after thinking about it and sleeping on it Friday night. And I will explain why.
Hugh Hewitt's right. Why not leave him right where he is? He is the epitome of agenda journalism at the LA Times, and if they keep him there (which, by their own code of ethics, they should fire him) they're only reinforcing their embrace of agenda journalism for their readers. In other words, they don't really care, and would rather keep the status quo. That is what agenda journalism is all about.
A return to the status quo of six years ago, return to a pre-11 September world, and a return to the good old days where they had virtually unlimited access to the White House. Why? Because those were the golden days for journalism, then. Let's face it, the press is most displeased with what the US has become since 11 September. Stricter security measures, "pre-emptive" programs designed to protect the nation that are classified, and, obviously, the war.
Hiltzik is a hack. But he's probably the sort of hack that still generates readers for the LA Times. In the overall scheme of things, and much like radio, newspapers are driven by readers and advertisers. Now if the LA Times had more complaints against Hiltzik than praise (provided, of course, that none of his pseudonyms provided praise to the Times for him), or advertisers threatened to withdraw their dollars over him, then he'd be gone in a heartbeat. But I sincerely doubt either has happened. The "ratings" game, as it's played within newspapers, will keep him there regardless of what sort of ethics violation he may have committed.
We also have to give the Times some leeway. They claim they're investigating him and his breech of ethics. Give them time, and we'll see which way they decide to go. But with others at the Times taking cheap shots (like Tim Rutten, like Barbara Demick), why fire Hiltzik? He is only doing what he feels is right, and all too often, we see the Times "condoning" such actions when they don't fire these nutters.
In other words, keep giving that nut a keyboard, and let him spew. In the end I have no doubt that he will do himself in. (Actually, I got $20 that Patterico will do him in all on his own; he's slapped him around the last few months harder than any other blogger in the blogosphere.)
So the answer to Marcie's question is that I did have this change of heart yesterday morning, and it's all due to how the Times runs their ship. Hugh claims that the GOP is like the pre-hit Titanic right now--definitely heading for the berg, but still able to steer away from it.
The LA Times has already hit the thing, and is sinking fast. Hiltzik can't help them bail fast enough to avoid sinking, so he's up topside sitting in with the band.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home