Why Being Honest Matters
Ha-ha. I am not letting Thomas have all the fun beating on Mr. Hiltzik. But as he has emphasized his point clearly, I will be succint, and blatantly open.
When Thomas and I merged our original sites into this one, we maintained the same integrity that we had originally. We do not make up facts. We do not make up stories. We do not artifically create controversy. Michael Hiltzik has done precisely that.
It is not necessarily the same level that the Jayson Blair scandal was, where Blair was nailed making stories up for the New York Times. His crime was not only met with dismissal, but Howell Raines--the editor in chief at the time--was also dismissed. And this was right at the time. And it is right in Michael Hiltzik's, as well.
He not only invented pseudonyms to parrot himself and attack others, but also to provide "facts" in the overall argument that erupted in the comments section. This is an LA Times sponsored blog, and he has breached journalistic ethics. Remember that he is still a journalist, but he has a blog courtesy of the newspaper that he is employed at. And he is trying to make it as a "blogger" as well as a journalist.
What is even more telling than anything was the challenge to confront the charges made by Hugh Hewitt. Michael Hiltzik declined. So did Dean Baquet, the editor of the Times, and that was after he issued the typical "no comment" reply to Hugh's producer Generalissimo Duane. VP of Communications Gary Weitman also declined to comment further than the typical it-will-be-handled-internally excuse.
Does the Times condone lying? Does it? Because that is what this seems to be with me. He lied, ladies and gentlemen. There is no other definition for creating a phony name to pat yourself on the back. Thomas alluded to imaginary friends this morning, and that is precisely what this is like. He can find no one to side with him, so he has to "invent friends?" Either way you cut this issue, Michael Hiltzik lied.
And like much of America, that is an unforgivable sin in my eyes. It shows that you cannot be trusted. Furthermore, by refusing to comment on the issue by anyone within the Times hierarchy, or the author himself, they believe that they have no probolem with lying to the people they speak to.
Each day.
Every day.
If a blogger did that, they would be crucified. And not just by their readers, but by their critics, as well. It would open a blogger up to the worst they had ever seen. And on top of that, their site traffic would drop like a rock. In short, they would be dead in the water. And whether or not the Times opts to take action, Michael Hiltzik's blog should be the same way.
A significant drop in traffic.
Dead in the water.
Funny, art does imitate life. It is not everyday that we watch a journalist mirror his own newspaper in such a surreal sort of way.
The Bunny ;)
Ha-ha. I am not letting Thomas have all the fun beating on Mr. Hiltzik. But as he has emphasized his point clearly, I will be succint, and blatantly open.
When Thomas and I merged our original sites into this one, we maintained the same integrity that we had originally. We do not make up facts. We do not make up stories. We do not artifically create controversy. Michael Hiltzik has done precisely that.
It is not necessarily the same level that the Jayson Blair scandal was, where Blair was nailed making stories up for the New York Times. His crime was not only met with dismissal, but Howell Raines--the editor in chief at the time--was also dismissed. And this was right at the time. And it is right in Michael Hiltzik's, as well.
He not only invented pseudonyms to parrot himself and attack others, but also to provide "facts" in the overall argument that erupted in the comments section. This is an LA Times sponsored blog, and he has breached journalistic ethics. Remember that he is still a journalist, but he has a blog courtesy of the newspaper that he is employed at. And he is trying to make it as a "blogger" as well as a journalist.
What is even more telling than anything was the challenge to confront the charges made by Hugh Hewitt. Michael Hiltzik declined. So did Dean Baquet, the editor of the Times, and that was after he issued the typical "no comment" reply to Hugh's producer Generalissimo Duane. VP of Communications Gary Weitman also declined to comment further than the typical it-will-be-handled-internally excuse.
Does the Times condone lying? Does it? Because that is what this seems to be with me. He lied, ladies and gentlemen. There is no other definition for creating a phony name to pat yourself on the back. Thomas alluded to imaginary friends this morning, and that is precisely what this is like. He can find no one to side with him, so he has to "invent friends?" Either way you cut this issue, Michael Hiltzik lied.
And like much of America, that is an unforgivable sin in my eyes. It shows that you cannot be trusted. Furthermore, by refusing to comment on the issue by anyone within the Times hierarchy, or the author himself, they believe that they have no probolem with lying to the people they speak to.
Each day.
Every day.
If a blogger did that, they would be crucified. And not just by their readers, but by their critics, as well. It would open a blogger up to the worst they had ever seen. And on top of that, their site traffic would drop like a rock. In short, they would be dead in the water. And whether or not the Times opts to take action, Michael Hiltzik's blog should be the same way.
A significant drop in traffic.
Dead in the water.
Funny, art does imitate life. It is not everyday that we watch a journalist mirror his own newspaper in such a surreal sort of way.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home