Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#101

Post by philwelch »

nknight wrote: post #10
hollerith wrote: post #6

This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).

You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity: “TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.” This is a d…

How is it anything but obvious that TechCrunch doesn't operate under a "traditional understanding of journalism"?

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#102

Post by nl »

teej wrote: post #55
brackin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.

AOL has been making money hand-over-fist while being the brunt of insults for 10 years now - this wouldn't be the first time.

A (falling) ~10% profit margin and -8.40% year-on-year revenue growth isn't really making money "hand-over-fist"

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AOL+Key+Statistics

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#103

Post by micmcg »

jneal wrote: post #26

First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS. However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post…

FYI, there's no such thing as "over-arrogant", there's no amount arrogance that is considered a positive, you would just say someone is arrogant. Though given your use of air quotes about the "big guys", I may be wasting my time here.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#104

Post by RockyMcNuts »

petervandijck wrote: post #98
anonfortc wrote: post #20

This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game! So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole b…

The conflict of interest is a total red herring. Arrington has always disclosed much more than most. If you think it's not, you don't know how the (tech) news industry works.

The news business is always inherently conflicted. In the old days Tony Perkins ran Red Herring and his father was the Perkins in Kleiner Perkins.

A journalist is always getting spin from insiders, and then has to write the story that's true and complete, that engages readers. You're always making a deal with the source, I'll help you get your side out, if you help me get the story closer to the truth. Debunking spin is generally not a way to keep your sources talking to you first, or writing what readers and advertisers want.

That being said, I don't see how you can be a VC, on the board of companies and privy to all their inside dope, and at the same time be a journalist whose job is ferreting out the inside dope from everybody else (including possibly competition) and sharing it with the world and passing judgment on them.

You can't be an insider and an outsider at the same time. You can be a VC, with fiduciary duties impacting your own and your investors' wealth, or a journalist, whose duty is to inform readers as much as possible, but not both.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#105

Post by jfoutz »

petervandijck wrote: post #97
credo wrote: post #41

Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests. However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch. Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder…

Or, he's standing up for his team. Saying the truth is always hard.

It's not his team. it's AOL's team. he sold it.

this point however is pretty fascinating "Sell TechCrunch back to the original shareholders". I wonder if he'd be willing to put a number on that sale?

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#106

Post by movingahead »

petervandijck wrote: post #100
movingahead wrote: post #70

Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to his credit, he has maintained a strict transparen…

I'm surprised as well. Editorial independence is a real issue (not like the conflict of interest red herring), and we're not defending it for the most influential tech news blog?

Agree. I am amazed at how most people just bash TechCrunch and leave the matter. No matter one likes it or not, they are the biggest tech blog and so very influential. TC's well-being is in the interest of the startup community.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#107

Post by tapp »

credo wrote: post #41

Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests. However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch. Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder…

> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor

I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#108

Post by tokenadult »

anonfortc wrote: post #20

This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game! So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole b…

It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed.

This reminds me of Henry Kissinger's realpolitik comment on the Iran-Iraq War of the early 1980s: "Pity they can't both lose."

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#109

Post by keithwinstein »

teej wrote: post #55
brackin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.

AOL has been making money hand-over-fist while being the brunt of insults for 10 years now - this wouldn't be the first time.

AOL's accumulated profit over its entire existence (pre-merger, merged, and post-merger) is negative $1.1 billion, counting realized and unrealized losses. They haven't made money at all yet.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#110

Post by 9999 »

philwelch wrote: post #99
9999 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The capital J Journalist folks that MG Siegler referenced in his piece earlier have found TechCrunch's position on editorial ethics so laughable that it's almost hard to quantify the gulf between their expectations and the piddling concessions TechCrunch has offered over the years. I lived with a capital J journalist for a long time and got to know a lot of his coworkers and contacts, and I was really quite surprised…

That's traditional journalism, but traditional journalism is going out of business. Tabloids and demagoguery are an easier sell for dumb audiences, and smart audiences can deal with bias, so there's only a niche market left for impartial journalism. We certainly can't expect it to remain the predominant paradigm. You and I may think there's something seedy and questionable about writing for a trashy tabloid, but it's…

Tabloids and demagoguery have existed for as long as real journalism. I think it's odd to think that either one is going to replace the other entirely, although it certainly seems that at times one is more prevalent. Every era has its Creelman and Hearst, but most have their Menckens and Pulitzers too.

The New York Times' article about Arrington's questionable ethics was written with the general public in mind, most of whom probably know very little about TC and Arrington. If nothing else, now when they see a TC reference or an Arrington byline in some other venue (or if they click on a link directing them to TC), they'll take whatever is said with a grain of salt. Perhaps that's what you mean by "smart audiences can deal with bias." Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that even the smart people need a reliable efficient source for startup news that isn't being delivered by people with a monetary interest in what they're covering... Obviously most of the people that are reading HN have enough interest in startup and tech news that they're willing to filter primary sources themselves. But what about someone in another field? Don't they deserve an unbiased, reliable, and informed source?

Post reply on HN