Thank you for your update. You responded to my October 14, 1:58 AM comment, and others’ comments, plus blog posts around the net written about this issue.

Your response in the end was in my opinion a fair one. I believe more disclosure is better than less because otherwise you end up alienating your readers. On the other hand, transparency engenders respect.

Blogging has some special etiquette that has grown up over the years and this transparency is a big part of it. Granted, the only blogs to follow this are only those committed to ethics and reasonable debate… but I’d like to think the largest daily newspaper in the second largest U.S. city runs such a blog!

You handled this well — in the end. Try to do it quicker next time.

I’ll refrain from posting a wink smiley face here, because they are silly.

Again, we’ll see if they choose to publish it. Overall they should, considering…

… their update implies they are concerned about readers’ thoughts regarding how they run their blog. Also, their update implies they are responsive to their readers’ comments on transparency issues.

N.B. I did make another comment on the LAT blog post wholly related to the topic of that thread and they allowed it through right away.

When I read the last blog update on LAT’s post, I thought it was quite a good one. It seemed fair. Yes, they didn’t rake themselves over the coals any more embarrassingly than necessary, but who would expect them to? When I read your last post on this topic prior to this one I thought that’s what you wanted them to do. That seemed to me excessive of you and unnecessary… having now seen their newest update, I’m glad you agree they handled it fairly well in the end. “Better late than never,” as they put it.

If your main goal was to bring to LAT’s attention both the necessity and proper method of following transparent and ethical blogging practices in this regard, I think you’ve succeeded. And I hope it holds long term. There simply isn’t enough reward to bother (or take the risk) of trying to hide stuff. Not with “screen caps”, “Google cache” (which they could technically disable, but almost no one does this… and that would be almost internet sneaky for a news organization), and an army of commentators. Even if you, I, or Itsme didn’t notice this, their regular readers — whose comments were mucked about with — would.

They may not have prominent L.A. media critic blogs, but still, why alienate them when just a bit of thought given to disclosure builds credibility for no corresponding cost?

I’ll make another comment on their thread about it now. I suspect they’ll publish it because it will be complimentary.

I’ll update tonight to note that their update was made last night.

I think that catchphrase just entered Patterico’s Pontifications lore.

(I’m glad they can laugh at themselves a little there.)

They “discovered” it! They’re like Columbus!

I guess it would hurt their pride too much to acknowledge that their “discovery” was due to my hounding them about it, as reinforced (and given much wider and relevant circulation) by Mickey Kaus and Kevin Roderick.