21–30 of 114 posts
"This site is about to change forever and we’re in the total fucking dark." "If AOL tries to bing in their own Editor-in-Chief to run TechCrunch, it will be a colossal fucking mistake." I can't believe that rant went live. Somebody is getting fired.
"This site is about to change forever and we’re in the total fucking dark." "If AOL tries to bing in their own Editor-in-Chief to run TechCrunch, it will be a colossal fucking mistake." I can't believe that rant went live. Somebody is getting fired.
Will it still be the old TC? Is this just about Arrington or is it AOL finally digging its heels in and trying to tame the beast? Or are there some kind of dark machinations behind the scenes that nobody's talking about?
The easy way to answer all of it is by writing something that nobody can ignore. AOL's reaction will show their hand. If they torpedo the article, that's that, If they ask Arrington to use his big swinging editor title for real to kill it then that's that. If they let it sit, then they're willing to let their own property hold them to the fire with the entire valley looking on. Either way, hand-wavy secret shadow dealings are out the window.
TechCrunch reports the news. TechCrunch makes the news. It was ever thus.
When I think of TC, I usually think of the CrunchPad drama, Mike's sexist comments, Mike complaining about the Google kid standing in front of his car and the CrunchFund conflict of interest.
There are other startup sites that don't have the same arrogance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the author is motivated by their personal reputation? What benefit is there to keeping it all secret?
I suppose you could argue the benefit of keeping it private is that it doesn't let their readers see all the personal drama and histrionics that could impinge their editorial/journalistic credibility e.g. it's their job to report tech news, not to be a platform to communicate their personal feelings about internal office politics. I get the feeling that this article is precisely as a result of the 'new media' model o…
Open questions: Will this sort of thing become the new normal, as blogs become more mainstream and legacy publications take on some of their attributes? And would it be an improvement if it did?
Yes, TechCrunch should be about tech news and not about their office politics. But does publishing it disproportionately harm their credibility, or does not publishing it give them credibility they don't deserve? c.f. phone hacking by UK newspapers.
> Quite often, you never even see what he brings. But it permeates the entire site.
Which is it?
(real startup stories) vs (product reviews/facebook news) over time
That's where you'll find the problem, I have a feeling it will be sloping in a certain direction.
[deleted]
You kind of jump all over the place with your points.
1. professionalism. Yes, they don't exhibit professionalism in the traditional sense. they don't mind airing dirty laundry and posting personal rant posts.
2. Then you get into the question of bias. I think it's clear that they don't pander or hold punches with respect to AOL, their parent company. The whole point of the rants over the past few days has been the fact that these are independent writers who don't feel any particular loyalty to this unaffiliated crunchfund. And they don't like the implications they do.
He starts off by claiming there's no hidden conflict of interest because Arrington has no editorial control over the site. Then this: > Quite often, you never even see what he brings. But it permeates the entire site. Which is it?
He starts off by claiming there's no hidden conflict of interest because Arrington has no editorial control over the site. Then this: > Quite often, you never even see what he brings. But it permeates the entire site. Which is it?
You can have a huge influence on culture and morale without ever lifting a single finger of editorial control.