We get mail: Hiltzik-inspired rants and raves from readers


Admittedly, some of the below are signed emails but some are unsigned missives from our Anonymous Tips inbox (so I suppose there’s no way to tell if they’re from Michael Hiltzik or not.) Nevertheless, no topic has generated more reader response in months, and so, a sampling of the ‘bowl’s reader mail: 20051005_hiltzik.jpg
— “the thing is, Hitzlik essentially *did* lie. If he had just posted anonymous comments, I’d agree that it’s not a big deal. But he posted anonymous comments which essentially said ‘this guy Hitzlik is right’ which implicitly suggests the author of the comments is someone other than Hitzlik. Thus, a fib.”

— “Always enjoy the blog, but I think you’re off the mark on the Michael Hiltzik issue, addressing it as if his sin was merely to post pseudonymously. It was HOW HE USED that pseudonymity that renders him a liar, and a poor one at that. I’m far to the left and have no alliegance to Hiltzik’s critics whatsoever, but unfortunately they happen to be right about this one. Hiltzik played himself.”

— “Your analysis is dead on.” – Joe Scott, former columnist for the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner (1978-1989), and later, the Los Angeles Times.

— “The point about Hiltzik is not simply that he left anonymous comments, but that he left comments under fake names praising and defending himself! A small detail that you neglect to mention. At worst this dishonesty undermines his credibility as a journalist. At the very least it makes him a huge dork whose childish behavior has embarrassed his employer. If you were his boss, would you be pleased?” – David Chute