Via Patterico I find that Howard Kurtz has reported on Hiltzik's use of a sock puppet:
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.
It's good to see the paper taking this seriously. I don't think he should be fired for this, but he should admit that it was wrong, apologize and not do it again.
Tom Maguire asks:
For a bit of perspective, let's check the reaction to John Lott when his "Mary Rosh" sock puppet was outed. Here is Kieran Healey of Crooked Timber, Tim Lambert, and Timothy Noah of Slate.
Yes, perspective is good. Kieran Healey wrote a long and thoughtful post about Lott's missing survey, but did not blog about Mary Rosh. The post Maguire linked to was occasioned by Lott getting caught using a sock puppet for the third or fourth time (after he said that using Mary Rosh was wrong, Lott used another sock puppet the very next day). Timothy Noah's column was mainly about Lott's missing survey, though he did cover Mary Rosh as well.
What about some other bloggers?
Hugh Hewitt: three lengthy lengthy posts with eight updates on Hiltzik. On Mary Rosh? Nothing
Tom Maguire: a post on Hiltzik. On Mary Rosh? Nothing.
Glenn Reynolds: three posts including a couple of updates on Hiltzik. On Mary Rosh? Nothing, but "if there's actual news, I'll mention it on my site".
The parallels to the Corsair Affair are uncanny.
Tim, what's with this?
ben, I think it's explained here.
"He should admit that it was wrong, apologize and not do it again."
Still waiting for an apology for duping my site ...
These Lott partisans really have no level to which they will not stoop. He's had his hand caught in the cookie jar so many times.
Comparing Lott and Hiltzik is stupid for numerous reasons, but I'll just point out the obvious one: Lott was, for a time, a major conservatarian figure, and a counterpoint to the Bellesiles issue, something Hiltzik never was. After reading about this I had to google to remind myself who he was, and then remembered he guest posted at Washingtonmontly for a bit. Anyway, the point is that whatever his strengths or flaws Hiltzik isn't on the radar of people the way Lott was *before* his sock puppetry was revealed.
And, yes, using a sock puppet to defend yourself is rather stupid.
Tim, the Howard Kurtz link leads to Glenn Reynolds' comment.
Thanks Kristjan, fixed.
"Comparing Lott and Hiltzik is stupid for numerous reasons"
Some parallels:
'And David Mastio ain't buying the not-guilty plea either: "If you can't see the dishonesty in pretending you're not yourself in order to add credibility to your self defense, then you're in need of some adult supervision."
'Roger L. Simon, a Pajamas Media blogger, has a thoughtful reflection on the affair, and even expresses a measure of sympathy with the scandalized: "[I]t is surprising to see that someone with Hiltizk's bona fides would think he could get away with this - we can trace your IP pretty easily, Michael, often even locate you on the map. It is, however, equally likely that Hiltzik knew this deep down and had the all-too-human desire to shoot himself in the foot (or in this case worse, since his reputation, unlike his foot, will never fully recover)." '
http://www.slate.com/id/2140453/?nav=fix