More On "An Army of Hiltziks"

Deputy Attorney General Patterico covers the NY Times report on LA Times' columnist Michael Hiltzik's use of sock puppets to cheerlead for himself at various blogs.  His main point - the NY Times can't state the obvious about the ethics of posting supportive comments under pseudonyms.

Oddest detail - no MSM have contacted Supreme Court nominee Patterico for his version of events.

Comments

[kim]

They haven't figured out he's channeling Solomon.
============================

[Dwilkers]

Odd that they haven't contacted Attorney General Patterico. You'd almost think they're avoiding being exposed to the facts in an on the record sorta way....

[windansea]

what a bunch of BS...the article does not explain that Hiltzik used his socks to agree with his own posts and attack opposing viewpoints

the NYT reports this only to discredit blogs

[Lonetown]

Come on, you've got to admire their ability to maintain the fascade. Its like when blacks (er Af-Am's) used to go slo-mo as an act of civil disobedience.

This is the NYT's act of disobedience!

In my macho world it's a sign of extreme weakness and lack of self esteem.

[maryrose]

Howard Kurtz has an interesting take on this partisan hack . This appears to be unethical and dishonest. Come out and say what you mean in public rather than hiding under fake identities.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Parlay this affair into the real world.

Michael Hitlzik is on CSPAN's "Washington Journal". While he is on the program he calls into the show from his cell phone pretending to be Mikekoshi. He connects to the show, is put on the air, and starts applauding himself for such wonderful arguments.

Of course in this scenario you could witness Hiltzik talking to himself, but that's exactly what he was doing in his acts of sock-puppetry.

Amazing that the NY Times reported this without even attempting to contact Patrick Frey. That would have required the Times to note that Frey broke the story. That would have been another notch for the bloggers scorecard and one notch removed from the career media.

[Harry Arthur]

Agree with several comments at Pat's site that "sock puppet" is too nebulous a term for those not familiar with blogs. The term should be "shill". Most people will connect with that concept.

[Lew Clark]

And how many "anonymous sources close to the (fill in blank)" are actually the reporter making it up. We are told to "Trust me, I know this source is legit". We know better than that, Dan Rather! So I'm expanding my Anonymous Source Rule. It was "If it's accredited to an anonymous source, it's a lie!", to "It's a lie, and until I get a named source, the liar is right there in front of me!"

[Rich]

Presumably, the NYT understands that contacting the individual who 'broke' the story would give them facts which they would rather not have. Odd for an organization that deals with newsgathering, or is that really what they do? Odd .. Odd .. Odd

A Byzantine labyrinth, but then the object here is to hide by distracting attention, no?

This sort of thing used to get my goat, but now it simply amuses. I wonder if those engaged in this clumsy daily charade, know how silly they look? I mean outside of their close circle of friends. I wonder if for profit organizations can sustain operations selling to themselves?

Rich

[MayBee]

The NYTs has a list of approved contacts, and Chief Justice Frey is simply not on it. I've heard they did try to contact by email Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson for their take on the story. Joe was busy at the Santa Cruz teach in, and Larry accidentally responded using the name 'Beckwith'.

[Bemis]

Why complain about it? It made the guy look like an idiot. That's great!

[MayBee]

***legal disclaimer: my above post may contain some factual errors.****

[Patterico]

"Oddest detail - no MSM have contacted Supreme Court nominee Patterico for his version of events."

That's *Justice* Patterico to you.

[Patterico]

Oh, I see MayBee already made that joke. Sorry.

[MayBee]

Patterico-- I made you Chief, buddy!

[Patterico]

I updated the post Tom linked, to note that I was called by an AP reporter today. Follow the link to see how hard he tried to talk to me . . .

[Solicitor General Patterico]

Hint: not very.

[MayBee]

Dear UN Secretary General Patterico-

If you could just drop a hint that you think this is due to the media climate Bush has created- you know, the chilling effect from the unitary President- you could get a few column inches in the big media AND get the label of an 'honest' republican.

[triticale]

So wouldn't this chilling effect tend to counteract global warming? That would be a good thing, right?

[JM Hanes]

Harry

Agree that "shill" is both more apt and more informative when attempting to communicate outside the blogoshere where ridicule is not the familiar weapon of choice.

[Rick Ballard]

His Holiness Emperor Patterico I,

In the unlikely event that the "reporter" from AP should actually call you back (your holiness does realize that the "reporter" will insert the obligatory 'repeated attempts to contact Patterico for this article were unsuccessful'?) Harry's suggestion of using shill in lieu of sock puppet makes a good deal of sense. I believe that "shill" (with appurtenent grades) is actually printed on AP's payscale chart. Use of the familiar term will save the crayons and craft paper that would be required to clarify the meaning of sock puppet to the "reporter".

In obsequious respect, etc

[Presidentl Patterico]

Actually, "shill" was going to be in the talking points, thanks to my blog commenters.

[Tim Lambert]

Here is Glenn Reynolds on Mary Rosh:

Lott has not covered himself with glory in this matter, and the pseudonymous-posting thing is kind of weird (though, um, certain bloggers are not in a position to criticize pseudonymous argument too much, and raising it after the main claim seemed to have been laid to rest seemed a bit cheesy to me).

Good to see that he has changed his mind about sock puppetry.

[Eric Blair]

"And how many "anonymous sources close to the (fill in blank)" are actually the reporter making it up. We are told to "Trust me, I know this source is legit". We know better than that, Dan Rather! So I'm expanding my Anonymous Source Rule. It was "If it's accredited to an anonymous source, it's a lie!", to "It's a lie, and until I get a named source, the liar is right there in front of me!"

I've been doing this for awhile now. Its basically my first internal edit on anything I read.

[kim]

Well, you 'certainly blogged' the meat of that quote.
===================================