Round Three
In which Michael Hiltzik decides he's had quite enough drubbing by Patterico and decides to take on Hugh Hewitt instead.
Which leads to the question – exactly how in touch with reality is Hiltzik?
Apparently not much. Read Patterico. Read Hiltzik. Ask yourself – is this a smart move? (Better yet, read them in reverse order).
As of this writing Hugh Hewitt is at Number 9 in The Truth Laid Bear rankings. About where it has been for a long time. Mr. Hiltzik does not have a ranking. At all. None whatsoever.
We here at Blue Crab Boulevard have always maintained that's it generally a bad idea to continue digging after reaching the bottom. Reaching bottom and then deciding to take on a whole new contender? That would be right out. We here at the Boulevard, incidentally, barely register in the TTLB rankings. But we are higher than 1%.
UPDATE: Winds of Change on Hiltzik. That will leave a mark.
UPDATE: Sorry, I left out the link to the round two post; here it is. The first round happened before I started this blog.
Blogosphere, Dumb Stuff | Gaius April 16, 2006
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 16, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Being the fair and balanced reporter I am . . . yes, I agree that Hiltzik is being drubbed by Patterico. It’s painful.
Around the beginning of the year, Hiltzik published a two-part response to Patterico that was extremely flabby. Part One was almost entirely nonresponsive to Patterico’s claims about LA Times errors and mostly consisted of name-calling. Winds of Change said what I had been thinking for the last couple of months — that Hiltzik is being sloppy and leaving himself open to counterattacks. That’s dumb when going up against a prosecutor.
Some of Patterico’s criticisms of the Times are matters of news judgment, such as the play given to a story, and thus are gray areas. It would be better if he stuck entirely to indisputable, massive errors. Not that he would lack for examples.
My favorite example of such an inexcusable LA TImes error was in a front page article in December. The reporter mistook an Internet prank for a real press release from the Wyoming governor’s office.
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/12/la_times_quotes.html
So much for the legendy four levels of editing that the late LAT writer David Shaw boasted of at his paper. The article ran on Dec. 27, which I think may be related to letting this howler get published.
Trivia: The Wyoming governor’s press secretary, Lara Azar, used to work at my paper. In fact, she replaced me as business reporter in its Temecula office.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
I’ve been following the Patterico/Hiltzik wars since they started. They are amusing. Hiltzik does not have a clue how badly he is being beaten. Taking on Hewitt is like a Little League team calling out the Yankees. This should really be fun.
I read about the article you mention when it happened. Funny as heck. And you call me for sourcing! I have some standards!
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 16, 2006 @ 8:25 pm
Gaius,
Yes, you do have standards. I think you would not be taken in by a supposed press release that says the governor of Wyoming is nullifying federal law. Shades of John C. Calhoun! I’d call the White House for response, at least.
I’d also be suspicious if I found the press release on other Web sites, but not at the governor’s own Web site. That merits a call to the governor’s office, even if it’s during the holidays. This is pretty basic reasoning.
As for Hiltzik, I am aghast at the low factual quality of his argument in the piece against Hewitt, and in his arguments with Patterico. This should not be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It’s a matter of Hiltzik not meeting elementary standards of journalism.
For the record, I don’t care much for Hewitt’s site, as I don’t care for his counterparts on the left. Such sites are way too party line for my taste — “Four legs good, two legs better!” Patterico is willing to point out important facts even when they are uncomfortable ones for his side, and he also seems to be enjoying himself more.
By Gauis Arbo, April 16, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
If you hadn’t noticed, I’m not a party guy – well, let me rephrase that, since I like a good party – I’m not a political party guy. Hugh Hewitt is very (conservative) Republican, but also very damn good at what he does. I love the way he nails fuzzy thinkers, yet still stays civil.
I’m not a fan of really hard partisan stuff from either wing. Hewitt, while obviously partisan, is not deranged about it. That I can live with. He’s also a big supporter of the troops. That really makes him OK in my book.
By Don Surber, April 17, 2006 @ 8:18 am
By my card, Hiltzik in a TKO. Hewitt’s assertion that LAT’s liberal editorials have led to its “downfall” (800K+ PAID circulation per day vs. 30K “hits” a day) is ludicrous. LA is a liberal town.
Hewitt took on Hiltzik and Hiltzik gave it back to him in spades. A little disingenious to portray it as a first-strike on Hiltzik’s part
But then Hewitt is disingenious with his anti-MSM rant. Pure marketing on his part. His checks are signed MSM just like mine
By Gauis Arbo, April 17, 2006 @ 9:00 am
I don’t think so, Don. The obvious misuse of webstats kind of invalidates Hiltzik’s claims.
I think it likely that the LAT’s political stances are costing it readership. I’d just like to see a little more neutrality.
By Bradley J. Fikes, April 17, 2006 @ 9:57 am
Hiltzik is a business writer. One would expect he’d know how to use numbers correctly. I don’t know what would disturb me more — that he is deliberately using bogus Web stats, or that he is honestly ignorant of his error.
As for the LA Times, part of its problem is a basic lack of accuracy. LA Cowboy (http://lacowboy.blogspot.com) has some rather gruesome examples of the paper’s leadership not knowing its own city.