Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence • Hacker News Board

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#41

Post by credo » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:48 PM UTC

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 of CrunchFund.

The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. 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 (who also blogs - the Fred Wilson model).

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#42

Post by randall » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

jmjerlecki wrote: post #7

Zakuzaa wrote: post #3

I'd like to see mass exodus of writers and creating their own brand new site. Sounds familiar.

I could see MG Siegler joining Thisismynext/The Verge.

And Bankoff (the guy who orchestrated the Weblogs, Inc. merger, and subsequent editorial strategy of the NewAOL which Armstrong is executing on today) would probably be more than happy to welcome them into the fold.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#43

Post by brown9-2 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #39

brown9-2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#44

Post by brown9-2 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

nknight wrote: post #40

brown9-2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 investin…

I agree wholeheartedly on that last point - it's all of their fault for not making sure that a giant firewall existed between Arrington and TechCrunch as a part of this announcement.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#45

Post by brackin » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #38

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

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.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#46

Post by jackson71 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:52 PM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #27

I 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.

SHOUTcast's recent week-long on and off outage and subsequent crippling of their APIs is evidence enough of how seriously (or lack thereof) they take some of their properties.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#47

Post by flocial » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:52 PM UTC

This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life in them.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#48

Post by brackin » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #24

mikek wrote: post #14

Am 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?

I side with Arrington too, AOL didn't stick to their promise and Huff Post is hardly editorial brilliance. They don't pay most of their staff and a lot of their content is just SEO spam. I mean all of these editors of Engadget left, keeping quiet but many hinted about the editorial aspects inside of AOL as one of the reasons they'd resigned.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#49

Post by recampbell » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:54 PM UTC

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…

A more apt comparison is a GE board member working as a NBC reporter.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#50

Post by wanorris » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 7:56 PM UTC

toddmorey wrote: post #25

mikek wrote: post #14

Am 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.

Why? Om Malik is a partner in a venture firm[1] and still writes for GigaOm.

You don't have to obtain a license or agree to uphold any particular code of conduct to be allowed to write about news for the web. You just write, and if people value what you have to say, they read. Arrington even had signoff from the CEO of AOL saying he could do both.

That's not to say that Arrington is completely in the right in this. Many reasonable people seem to be worried about the conflict of interest, so there's a good chance that it's in AOL's interest to dispose of him to avoid worse PR. But I think he absolutely went into this thinking that he could keep doing TechCrunch.

[1] http://www.trueventures.com/member/om-malik/