[deleted]
TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
61–70 of 114 posts
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#62> TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over Nope, still dramatic and hyperbolic as ever!
A TechCrunch article about TechCrunch barely raises my eyebrows nowadays.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#63The notion that Mike, or anyone else, investing in a company would dictate some sort of giant conflicted agenda is laughable. Literally. If Mike tried to get me to write some unreasonable post about a company he had invested in, I would laugh at him. But he would never do that. No, what's laughable is expecting your readership to rely on your characterisation of your relationship with your editor as a guide to the ed…
The problem is that the TC ethics statement doesn't really help. There's too many problems of conflict of interest.
I wrote up an article about them prior to Arrington's resignation:
http://blog.imranghory.org/michael-arringtons-unsolvable-con...
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#64The notion that Mike, or anyone else, investing in a company would dictate some sort of giant conflicted agenda is laughable. Literally. If Mike tried to get me to write some unreasonable post about a company he had invested in, I would laugh at him. But he would never do that. No, what's laughable is expecting your readership to rely on your characterisation of your relationship with your editor as a guide to the ed…
The problem is that the TC ethics statement doesn't really help. There's too many problems of conflict of interest. I wrote up an article about them prior to Arrington's resignation: http://blog.imranghory.org/michael-arringtons-unsolvable-con...
I had just finished reading your post from the link further down and I agree with its content. This is not a new problem for journalism. The solution is to leave all that lovely money on the table and keep your reputation intact, or change career.
From Walt Mossberg's version of the link I posted above:
I don’t own a single share of stock in any of the companies whose products I cover, or any shares in technology-oriented mutual funds. Because of this, I completely missed the giant run-up in tech stocks a few years back, and looked like an idiot. However, when the tech stocks crashed, I looked like a genius. Neither was true.
-- http://allthingsd.com/index.php?atd_ajax=authorinfo&fiel...
Obviously, those who adhere to this principle are not saints. It just goes with the job.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#65> TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over Nope, still dramatic and hyperbolic as ever!
A TechCrunch article about TechCrunch barely raises my eyebrows nowadays.
This one is different in the sense that this time the drama over at TechCrunch is actually about TechCrunch itself.
Not to sound silly, but contrast this to the usual techcrunch drama (and drama is overly normal over there): Techcrunch being upset that last.fm is calling them full of shit because Techcrunch had some sensationalistic news about last.fm which last.fm was not willing to confirm or deny within 10 minutes and so they went live with the story, unconfirmed, because that is what cutting edge journalism is, because people deserve to know what may or may not be there. Sort of. Wait. Why do people hate us all of a sudden?
That sort of drama. Demeaning to the mind and going at a constant rate over at techcrunch.com.
So... This is still techcrunch and it is still drama, but at least this time (maybe for the last time?) it's different. Feels refreshing, doesn't it?
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#66In otherwords: something might happen tomorrow, and it might involve the ouster of Arrington from TechCrunch. But we don't know, and no one is telling us. But we like poking bee hives, so we're going to publish this rant anyway... Between this and the Carr post from a few days ago ( http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/crunchfund/ ), they really do seem totally out of control over there... which is far worse.
But we don't know, and no one is telling us. But we like poking bee hives, so we're going to publish this rant anyway...
You cannot possibly say that this doesn't sound like how things are always done at techcrunch. Write first, cause drama, then cause more drama by publishing stories about why you cannot fathom that people has an issue about your way of publishing stories and your unclear communication. Then repeat.
I've long stopped paying attention to the site at all, but I had to check this one out. Hopefully TC will vanish and the internet will gain something better.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#67Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired.
Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax.
Around the same time Mike dissolves the partnership with Jason Calacanis for the TechCrunch50 conference [2], allegedly a huge part of TechCrunch's income.
Four months later, having established residency in a no state income tax state and having rid TechCrunch of an external party having a large stake in TechCrunch's income, AOL out of the blue (honest!) buys TechCrunch [3].
Two months later, Calacanis sues Arrington over TechCrunch50 [4], a suit I haven't heard anything about since. Honestly, as much as people here like to rag on Calacanis (and Mahalo, which is basically doomed IMHO), I honestly think he has a case here.
To quote Mike Arrington, himself a lawyer, regarding the scandalous clawback clause in the Skype contracts [5]:
> These employees should simply hire a lawyer to sue Skype. There’s a valid fraud claim based on what I’m seeing, and the “atmospherics” (how lawyers describe the legally irrelevant facts surrounding the story that can nonetheless influence a judge and jury) are terrible for Skype.
Honestly I think the "atmospherics" are terrible for Arrington too. The state of California could probably make a case that Mike changed residency simply to avoid tax so they could make a claim that the sale was still taxable too.
Of course, most reading HN will know that any acquisition will typically come with an earn-out over 2+ years. That earn-out, like many vesting schedules, will have a bunch of conditions on it, probably including an acceleration clause for getting fired (termination probably without cause).
Mike wants to get fired.
EDIT: to clarify the residency of California [5]:
> (1) California residents pays California tax on all their income.
> (2) California generally taxes California-source income, …
> So, who is a resident? In determining residency, California law provides two presumptions. The first presumption is that a taxpayer who, in the aggregate, spends more than 9 months of a taxable year in California will be presumed to be a California resident. The second presumption is that an individual whose presence in California does not exceed 6 months within a taxable year and who maintains a permanent home outside California is not considered a California resident provided the taxpayer does not engage in any activity or conduct within the State other than as a seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
The point is that there is a subjective test (the last point there). I'm sure Mike dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's (registering to vote in Washington, getting a Washington state driver's license, etc) but if he spends significant time in the Valley it is not clearcut.
[1]: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/03/hi-seattle/
[2]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20004752-93.html
[3]: http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/28/tim-armstrong-we-got-techcr...
[4]: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/jason-cal...
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#68I started reading TechCrunch again yesterday because I heard Arrington would be fired. I don't like Arrington. 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.
Liking Arrington and reading TC have no logical correlation, as far as I see.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a small "Ethics Statement" link at right, across from her name and next to the Email/RSS links. It's a little too long to post here, but certainly worth reading. In other news, #links are bad for usability. Who knew?
#links are excellent for usability on pages that don't try to coerce it into representing something it isn't. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fragment_iden... Having named anchors so people can link to specific sections is good. Having some javascript mess around with storing state in them, not so much.
That's a very good point, my apologies. #links used badly are bad for usability.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#70> TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over Nope, still dramatic and hyperbolic as ever!
Which, of course, is MG Siegler's style. That makes the tone of the article far less surprising than if it had originated from another writer.