The Times just soundly spanked one-time blogger and pseudonymous commenter Michael Hiltzik with a punishment list that stops just one step short of a complete court-martial, Kevin Roderick reports.
The paper killed Hiltizk's column and blog just in time for the weekend, suspended him without pay for an unnamed period of time, and plans to reassign him to some undefined duty when he returns.
On the one hand - ouch. On the other hand, his Pulitzer may be the only thing that kept him from pink slip hell ...
The memo from Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Doug Frantz puts it pretty well, but almost misses Hiltzik's crime against authorial morality in pinpointing the one against editorial policy:
Killing a column is a serious step. We don't take it lightly. Mike did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web.
But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of our ethics guidelines: We do not misrepresent ourselves and we do not conceal our affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world. We expect Times employees to behave with integrity and follow our guidelines in all journalistic forums.
A columnist has a special place within The Times. Editors, colleagues and, most of all, readers must trust the integrity and judgment of a columnist because of the freedom that comes with the job. Mike often used his column to pillory business leaders for duplicity or violating the trust of employees, shareholders or the public and we are no longer comfortable granting him that special place within our newspaper.
Over the past few days, some analysts have used this episode to portray the Web as a new frontier for newspapers. Some have said it raises fresh and compelling ethical questions. We don't see it that way. The Web makes it easier to conceal one's identity, and the tone of exchanges is often harsh. But the Web doesn't change the rules for journalists.
The betrayal of trust is definitely one of journalism's most serious offenses.
But from a blogger's point of view, Hiltzik's sin wasn't posting under a pseudonym. Half the bloggers on the web do that, and some even make a living at it.
No, he stumbled by manufacturing two of his greatest fans, posing as them on his own blog and others, and trying to mislead the public as to his own popularity - both the height of vanity and the depth of stupidity for a blogger. It was only a matter of time before someone exposed him. If you proclaim yourself a truth-teller and analyst of fact, you can't get away with lying for long in this venue.
In short, Hiltzik was bogus. He decided it was better to look loved than to let his audience ever dislilke him. And he got kneecapped for his efforts.
End of chapter.
It'll be interesting to see what fun, experimental turf a Times blogger tries to lead us all into next.
Posted by: Mack_Reed on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 05:05 PM
