UPDATE: The comment thread at Patterico’s place is fascinating. I expect Michael Hiltzik will have to respond one way or the other before too long, and if he is innocent of the charge that he’s been posting anonymously in order to advance his own arguments or create the appearance of agreement or allies, his reply should be vigorous.
The Times’ response will be interesting as well. If they think their columnist/blogger has been unfairly accused, I expect they will defend him. If they believe that Patterico has in fact presented an irrefutable case, will they allow Hiltzik to continue to blog, but with a promise of not deceiving readers in the future? And if such a promise is made, how can it be enforced? Deception by a reporter on the official web site of a paper is not an insignificant matter, and if unrebuked or uncommented upon, it has to be assumed to be a generally acceptable practice.
Very interesting indeed.
UPDATE 2: Michael Hiltzik was recently interviewed by the Online Journalism Review at USC, and was full of his usual bonhomie (“Pajamas Media is just so gross”). His close:
You can’t count on people discovering you by chance. You have to affiliate yourself. You have to find a way to get marketed. I mean, that’s what newspapers have, that’s an advantage. But as I said at the outset, it’s going to be a very delicate relationship, because of the difference in how you address your audience, and what it will accept, and how it reflects on the rest of your enterprise.
The interview hasn’t generated any comments yet. Perhaps “Mikekoshi” has been busy.