So instead of writing this message in an email to the powers at be at AOL, he writes a blog post about it, which is certain to escalate the situation? Why?
To have an open discussion?
To influence people?
To have some fun?
To be brutally honest?
Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
21–30 of 118 posts
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#22drama queens
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#23Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#24Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.
I don't read TC regularly, but do they disclose when an article is written by someone who has a financial stake in the company being written about?
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#25Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.
Ethical track record aside, players and coaches don't get to officiate games; active investors don't get a free pass to be journalists in the same space. He KNEW he'd have to leave TechCrunch for the fund. The rest is just posturing.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#26First 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 and considers it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even possible?)
One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they" want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#27I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster fuck is 10 years old.
With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing in earnest.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#28This 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…
Where is he disclaiming journalistic integrity?
Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#29First 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…
Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as "ethical"?
Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - unless TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of interest.
Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence
#30Why do I have the feeling that we (the public) aren't the real target for these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we are only one side of.
I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows up?
Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?