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

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#31

Post by nknight »

brown9-2 wrote: post #28
nknight wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#34

Post by jobu »

ojbyrne wrote: post #8

So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....

NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I don't see a huge ethical problem.

That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both hats. It brings a huge magnifying glass onto the bias in his articles, and possibly the articles of all those at TechCrunch.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#36

Post by brown9-2 »

nknight wrote: post #31
brown9-2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?

Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#37

Post by brown9-2 »

jobu wrote: post #34
ojbyrne wrote: post #8

So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....

NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I don't see a huge ethical problem. That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both hats. I…

Is TechCrunch promising to always give full disclosure? The earlier articles this morning seemed to be very upset that anyone would think they need to do something like this, something so "old media" like.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#38

Post by nikcub »

mbreese wrote: post #30

Why 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…

I would become a lot more suspicious of this being a pageview drive if Arriana replied using huffingtonpost.com

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#39

Post by wmf »

brown9-2 wrote: post #29
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…

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.

There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say, MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of independent writers who don't talk to each other).

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#40

Post by nknight »

brown9-2 wrote: post #36
nknight wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?

Perhaps it is, but having a member of the senior staff also running an investment fund that invests in the very subjects of the TechCrunch site is a huge integrity issue. Armstrong seemed to be dodging the question to me, a way to avoid having to answer for what Arrington is up to.

I kinda see what you're getting at, but it doesn't really make any sense. Armstrong was actively working with Arrington on the fund. It wouldn't be answering for Arrington (or at least not just Arrington), but for himself and AOL as a whole.

This wasn't something that Arrington just announced out of the blue that AOL has to scramble to react to. Armstrong was active in setting the whole thing up, and AOL was investing in the fund. They knew this was happening way in advance, and announced it with Arrington. Then everything went to hell. To whatever degree this could possibly be construed as Arrington's fault, it must also be seen as at least equally AOL's fault.

Post reply on HN