Patterico asks:
Is an L.A. Times columnist leaving comments on the Internet under assumed “sock puppet†identities  identities which he pretends is someone other than himself?
Read on and judge for yourself. As for me, I’ve made up my mind, and the answer is “yes.â€Â
Jesus. Well, I can’t really speak to Michael Hiltzik’s motivation, but I know that when I’m looking for a little self-affirmation and gratification, I just head to the bathroom and, y’know, summon up some Elle McPherson fantasies…
But to each his own, I guess.
(h/t John Doe and Allah)
*****
update: Hiltzik responds! (h/t ss)
*****
update 2: The LA Times suspends Hiltzik. For the record, I hate to see people’s jobs effected by blogging—be it Bill Hobbs or this dude. But the LAT evidently has its ethics standards…
Here’s the text of the announcement:
Notice from the Editors
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.
(h/t Allah)
When I started here, people said you used to post under pseudonyms. It must be attractive.
Don’t mess with Patterico!
I see nothing wrong with psuedonyms.
And if “people” said it, it MUST be true.
…
Unless those people are the President of Iran. Then we’ll just have to wait and see, I suppose.
I agree with the above commenter. Good point!
I agree with Amused and Also above, who both demonstrate a lot of intelligence on this issue. Kudos, gentlemen.
Jeff–
You should try a sock puppet, just for variety.
I can’t understand why anyone would find this behavior objectionable, and judging from the responses of Amused, Also, and Entertained, I am not alone in this opinion.
Oh, sorry, the above comment was by me, not amused. By an odd coincidence, I typed his name instead of mine.
I think Amused, Also, Entertained, and Enjoying all make extremely persuasive arguments, and the consensus of so many smart people clearly indicates ours is the correct view on this topic.
When I started here, people said you used to post under pseudonyms. It must be attractive.
Well, Mr. Actus (if that is your real name) ….
I’m sorry, Sock Puppet, you must provide your own psychophantic pseudonyms.
Michael Hiltzik’s hyperventilating response say all you need to know about him. Kind of sad, rather than outrageous or such. I think if you blog you will end up accumulating critics and friends alike. If you don’t want critics, and have to invent friends, then you really should reconsider the whole blogging-thingy.
Excellent points, “Amused” and “Enjoyed.” However I think I might possibly enjoy this thread more if SarahW were in it.
Missing the point.
Hilzik hilariously defends himself here in fine actus fashion. Clearly if anonymity is warranted in some cases, it is warranted in any case, hence Patterico is a hypocrite.
Hilzik’s also apparently barring people from commenting under the psyeudonym “Mikekoshi” on his site (I tried). As if there were some kind of deception that could ever arise from creative use of pseudonyms.
WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE ANONYMITY?!!!
You know, it would be great if that commenter “Phinn” could say something. His insights are always so helpful.
If Phinn were here, he would probably point out that actus is a stone-cold idiot.
Wow. Didn’t some Malkin bashing commentor in another thread just recently explain to us that journalists have ethical standards to maintain?
Oh. LA Times.
Nevermind.
This comment thread does nothing to convince me that actus isn’t Jeff.
Obligatory ignore acthole comment.
There certainly is nothing wrong about using a “handle” in posting or commenting – that is to be expected. It isdisengenuous to post deceptively as another poster supporting your own comments or post.
Sort of 3rd gradish.
You’ll be surprised when you discover my true identity:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2006/04/we_are_all_pote.html
‘Tis true, actus. In Dec of 2001 when I started this thing, there were maybe 50 political blogs. I was in grad school as a fiction writer. And I thought it would be funny to have group blog with other posters, like, for instance, Anne D. Kauffman.
I was being playful. And rather obvious.
But it was a big hassle trying to post under a bunch of different names. So I stopped it fairly quickly.
Of course, at the time, the blogosphere was quite different than it is today. And, like I’ve done from very early on, I was essentially experimenting with a new form.
That, and I’m not a LA Times journalist. So use that info for what it’s worth.
Nevermind what I said. Nothing I have ever said is worth repeating. I am a waste of space.
P.S. I masturbate to cartoons.
What about stop-action animation? Were you ever really horny for Clarice, the sweet girl reindeer from the Rudolph Christmas special?
I’m not following this line. But the experiment part I like.
Quite simple, really. There wasn’t even a “blogosphere,” yet. There were just a few sites that I read who posted on politics—all of which I found while using Google to find non-MSM takes on current events. No Ecosystem, etc. I had maybe 50 hits a day…
Hell, by the time there was a “left-side” of the blogosphere, I had long stopped trying to keep multiple windows open to post under multiple names in Blogger.
When my blog started it, I considered it an chance to play with narrative form. I don’t think Mr. Hilzik was going for the same thing.
I don’t see what it has to do with the age of ‘the blogosphere.’
My bad foer trying to engage you, actus.
Reread my previous posts for any and all necessary clarifications (pay special attention to the “there was no blogosphere at the time” bit). And try to keep in mind that just because I put two things that explain my original blog set up in the same paragraph doesn’t mean I’m drawing a causal connection between those two things.
Hear! Hear!
Jeff,
You can’t reason with an unreasonable person. Exercies.In.Futility.
Engaging acthole in anything is like trying to teach physics to 2nd graders. Although, you might succeed with the 2nd graders if you’re patient enough.
Yeah, well I think Amused, Also, Entertained, and Enjoying can all bite me!
I hate this thread!
Jeff,
C’mon admit it. Actus is your sock puppet. I mean, no one could miss so many points, could they? Tell the truth.
Okay, how about this. If you don’t want to give away the game, just post a haiku 4 posts after this one. Then only the regulars will know the truth.
I don’t see why ‘the blogosphere’ being at any age has anything to do with anyone’s original blog set up. Thats it.
Like I said….physics to a 2nd grader.
He’s got to be doing it on purpose. Nobody is that stupid.
I do give Hiltzik credit in one respect—he is taking a (deserved) beating in the comments to his “non-denial denial” and hasn’t pulled the post. Well, not yet, anyway.
I post, comment, and, since the end of 2004, blog under a pseudonym. I think, given today’s environment (the latest posts on Malkin, for instance) that it is wiser to do so.
But the sock-puppet bit Hiltzik engaged in is really stupid, especially because it is so easily checked by reading the traffic logs.
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.
Shouldn’t he have to face disciplinary action for essentially actively deceiving his readers and soiling the reputation of his newspaper?
Maybe if he were right of center they’d take action. Leftists can get away with deception, right?
Looks like Brave Sir
RobinMichael has turned off further commenting.Heh. guess I spoke too soon.
He’s got to be doing it on purpose. Nobody is that stupid.
Having read actus’ comments on several other blogs, he is indeed that stupid.
The Colossus: I noticed the same thing. He was taking quite the beating. Not surprised he shut down his comments, though. Ah well.
leave hizlik a loan, FATYANK
What Hitlzik has done is nothing new. There is nothing wrong in using a pseudonym. However using multiple names in an attempt to hide your already anonymous self to make a particularly offensive comment, or create phony allies for your arguments is considered bad form, and cowardly, and has resulted in lots of people being run off of websites, blogs, message boards, video game communities, etc in shame and ridicule.
Lissenup, actus. When Jeff started blogging, there weren’t any conventions about anonymity et cetera. As he’s already patiently explained to you, he was experimenting with a new narrative form. Get that? New. Untested.
People have come to realize since then that the medium works better if you know who you’re talking to—even if the signifier that your interlocutor has attached to himself is made-up. As long as you post as “actus”, I know that I’m going to read a ridiculously insipid and off-point comment 99% of the time. It makes the surprise all that much more rewarding when you manage to excrete something worthwhile. If you were to start posting under different aliases, all it would do is create the false appearance of an invasion of imbeciles.
TW: this post was composed entirely by myself.
Except, any 2nd-grader with a Warner Bros. education knows that if you run off the edge of a cliff, you’re going to fall to the canyon floor below.
*-poof-*
I masturbate to cartoons !!!!!!
I made a funny.
http://jimtreacher.com/
Sorry I did not respond sooner. I got my dick stuck in my pet goat.
http://www.animalforum.com/gabusemain.htm
My goat gets plenty of food and water, has adequate shelter, a healthy coat, and is generally in good spirits, except when I get out the frilly french maid outfit, dress him up, and chase him around the barn with my cat-o 9 tails, while singing the theme song from the Dukes of Hazard. Just sayin’
The Times has taken down his web site and are investigating.
Leave actus alone !!!
TW : Any, as in anybody miss PIATOR ?
Call me insane, but I do.
Leave actus alone. I want dancing armadillos and Prophet cartoons. I’m not here for pale imitations.
Okay, Charlie, you are insane.
Not only are you longing wistfully for the inane rantings of phone technician in a time of roaming (otherwise known as El Kiwi Loco), but you had the single finest piece of ass on this planet bedding down with you, and you went and cheated on her. Come on man, it was Denise fraking Richards !!!
Actus may beat off to cartoons, but most everybody else has Denise on their minds when they start practicing self-love.
TW : services : As in, actus services his goat.
Sneak a quick peek at the comments section over at Patterico’s place, Jeff, and you’ll see that the single huffiest and most ardent defender of an inalienable “right” to lie—shamelessly, for base polemical purpose—re: the true nature, number and/or purpose of one’s internet personae is none other than one “actus,” by name.
I know… I know. Shocked and appalled, right…?
Sorry. I mean, some people don’t understand the concept of anonymity. They feel lied to seeing different made up names on a comment are the same people. Too bad for this guy, though, it was against the rules of his employer to be anonymous period.
I know this is going to be a rant-ish thing…
I go through a lot of effort to be genuine and true. Granted, I use a pseudonym, but everything I post under my nom de net is exactly what I see to be true. I do not equivocate or lie. I feel that being able to hide behind a name enables one to be brutally honest without having to face unpleasant consequences if comments must be made under one’s real name. But once one has selected a method through which to present oneself to the world, one is obliged to honor and stick with it.
This sort of dishonesty, of Hiltzik’s, I find to be absolutely repulsive. It adds flames to the fires of doubt of those who doubt us on the Internet who wish to present certain less well-known facets of reality. Are we telling the truth? Are we trying to deceive the world? And so on and so forth.
And then for a reporter to resort to such deceptive means, it does not help us who already doubt the MSM’s integrity. It is one more nail in the MSM’s large coffin.
Only 2 identities are permitted.
An awkward (and cacophonously constructed) attempt at rebuttal, certainly. Regardless of how things may (or may not) typically be done on more leftish online fora, however—wouldn’t know, myself; not being a bottom feeder, I avoid mudholes—in the infinitely vaster and more relevant world without, it is routinely considered deceitful (at best) or else simply pathetic (at worst) to attempt to bolster one’s own flagging arguments by making things up out of whole cloth; whether by means of conjured “sources,” counterfeit “information,” or—as in this particular instance—a phantom chorus, yipping non-existent approval.
This has nothing whatsoever, obviously, to do with (as you so dishonestly attempted to frame it) “the concept of anonymity”; and everything in the world, instead, with that of simple, baseline honesty, and a diatomic molecule of respect for one’s readers.
I do not discount, out of hand, the (evidently) very real possibility that this is all vertiginously above and beyond your ability to grasp, concept-wise. There appears to be precious little to be gained by you, however, in making the point any more humiliatingly manifest than you have to date.
Good God, actus, you are the thickest, most asinine commenter I have ever seen (and that includes the phoenician).
First, this sentence makes no sense. But that’s par for the course for you. I think I know what you were trying to say, because I am almost fluent in acthole.
Second, it’s not the mere use of a pseudonym that makes Hiltzik a pathetic loser. What makes him a pathetic loser is the fact that HE ASSUMED A SECOND IDENTITY TO REFER TO HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON.
The obvious reason for doing this is to deceive others into believing that each of these personae had a supporter, a defender. It was a transparent attempt to artificially bolster his own credibility as a journalist.
Consider the age-old use of the shill. A salesman (or a con man) would address a crowd, trying to convince them to do or buy something. Some guy in the audience would pretend to be interested, or otherwise converse publicly with the salesman in a way that was designed to make the salesman look good.
But the shill is not a disinterested third party. He deceives the rest of the audience into believing that he is independent from the salesman/con man, even though they are colluding. Thus, when the shill concedes, or gives in and buys whatever the salesman/con man is selling, it looks as though the shill has made the decision that the salesman/con man wants the audience to make. It is a patently deceptive way to dispel doubt and bolster the credibility of the salesman/con man.
The beauty of Hiltzik’s little charade is that, because of the relative anonymity of the Internet, he was able to play both roles. Until Patterico discovered the truth, that is.
Not satisfied with having only one shill, Hiltzik even invented a second shill-identity. There may have been even more that we don’t know about, yet.
That’s what you’d do if you wanted to remain anonymous. It wouldn’t work if you made an anonymous comment and then used the first person when referring to a real name.
OK, put me down in the retarded telephone pole camp. rls, I should have never doubted ye.
Heh. Ah, you actus impersonators. You crack me up. For those not familiar let me explain. For all it’s mind-blowing stupidity and obtuseness, this fake post reflects the real actus’s miraculous ability to miss the point in the most ingenious ways.
I just don’t think the real actus can play stupid that brilliantly, though. Magnificent work though. God, I admire that.
OK. [deep breath]
We need a new word for “stupid” to describe you, but OK.
Let’s accept the fact that Hiltzik “wanted to remain anonymous,” as you put it, and take it one step further. Please try to follow along.
Here it goes:
THE FACT THAT HILTZIK “WANTED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS” WHILE HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF AND HIS OWN FUCKING COLUMNS IS WHAT MAKES HIM A LYING, SOCK-PUPPET LOSER!
“One mo’ once,” as Duke Ellington was wont to say: it is routinely considered deceitful (at best) or else simply pathetic (at worst) to attempt to bolster one’s own flagging arguments by making things up out of whole cloth; whether by means of conjured “sources,†counterfeit “information,†orâ€â€as in this particular instanceâ€â€a phantom chorus, yipping non-existent approval.
This has nothing whatsoever, obviously, to do with (as you so dishonestly attempted to frame it) “the concept of anonymityâ€Â; and everything in the world, instead, with that of simple, baseline honesty, and a diatomic molecule of respect for one’s readers.
It is always possible, of course, that you simply don’t feel yourself—or (by extension) any of your like-minded political brethren—deserving of being accorded even the most cursory smidge of intellectual honesty, as befits functionally literate adults. Nor will I rush to gainsay you, in that regard.
More LA Times-related hijinks and suchlike, breaking just now over at Patterico’s place!