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

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#71

Post by 9999 »

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.

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 at the lengths those people go to maintain their journalistic integrity. They would not simply disclose conflicts of interest, they would completely avoid them. For example, a lot of them would not even vote in elections or invest in funds that could even potentially contain stock in companies that they could even possibly cover in the future (regardless of whether or not they were even working in that field!). To the individuals that subscribe to that system, Arrington's position as an editor of a tremendously powerful tech news source and an investor in tech companies is absolutely irreconcilable.

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people really have little comprehension of what this so-called "capital J journalism" is about. In fact, it's pretty sad that someone in MG Siegler's position would even draw such a distinction. There is no such thing as capital J journalism. There's journalism, and then there's bullshit.

edited: originally I referred to Siegler as MC Siegler

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#72

Post by tzury »

jonknee wrote: post #56

Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to take part in their office politics.

    millionaires fighting other millionaires 
    for WordPress admin status
could not phrase this better

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#73

Post by Apocryphon »

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.

Oh, to live in a world where MySpace was acquired by AOL instead of Rupert Murdoch.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#74

Post by tatsuke95 »

brackin wrote: post #57
brackin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By the way, yes they do. Every post Arrington will say he or someone at TC is an investor. Not that it's too regular.

Are you sure about this? "Every post" is a strong statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Arrington is an implicit investor in YC, through the Angel Fund, and Techcrunch gave the YC startups a ton of coverage lately. The few articles that I read in the early going made no reference to this fact.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#75

Post by tatsuke95 »

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…

It's possible that Arrington is getting little support because --and I base this only on his online, public persona-- he isn't a very likable guy.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#76

Post by cma »

9999 wrote: post #71
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.

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…

How does "not even vot[ing] in elections" in any way help with bias for a particular candidate? If you use a spin pulpit to shill for your desired candidate, how does not going out and voting for him too do anything to change that?

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#78

Post by 9999 »

cma wrote: post #76
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…

How does "not even vot[ing] in elections" in any way help with bias for a particular candidate? If you use a spin pulpit to shill for your desired candidate, how does not going out and voting for him too do anything to change that?

To be above all suspicion or reproach. The people I knew were pretty hardcore. That being said, they weren't all that intense. I'm sure some of them did vote, but they weren't running the campaign for one of the candidates in their off time, and if they were, they would have been fired immediately. As for spin pulpits, I'm not talking about opinion writing, I'm talking about reporting, which is ostensibly what TechCrunch does.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#79

Post by brackin »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #74
brackin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, yes they do. Every post Arrington will say he or someone at TC is an investor. Not that it's too regular.

Are you sure about this? "Every post" is a strong statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Arrington is an implicit investor in YC, through the Angel Fund, and Techcrunch gave the YC startups a ton of coverage lately. The few articles that I read in the early going made no reference to this fact.

YC startups have been given lots of press for years. You may be right, I don't know the specifics of the terms but YC startups have always had a lot of coverage because they're YC startups.

I've seen far more bias from the mainstream press tech reporters towards certain startups. All these journalists seem to be hired by a number of startups. Seems like some are just reporting to help their career.

Post reply on HN