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

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#81

Post by JabavuAdams »

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.

That's not good enough. That fact that it's accepted is a problem.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#82

Post by davidw »

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…

Regarding not voting in elections. I'm reading a book called 'Influence' where he talks about merely the act of writing something down influencing your future decisions, so by going out and voting for one person over another might very well have a deeper influence than it seems. He's now 'your' guy/gal at some level.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#84

Post by ig1 »

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.

No they don't, and even if they wanted to they can't without it causing further problem (because of startups being in stealth, the disclosure itself giving favourable coverage to the startup).

I wrote an article about it here: http://blog.imranghory.org/michael-arringtons-unsolvable-con...

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#85

Post by RockyMcNuts »

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…

ha!

Arrington: I'm going to start raising a fund, with the Crunch name and telling investors they'll get privileged access to TechCrunch and covered companies.

Ariana: Pffth! GTFO!

Arrington: Editorial independence! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

This from the guy who's started thumbing his nose at AOL the day they bought his company. Even started a feud with Engadget accusing them of some underhanded BS that ended when AOL had Arrington's back and most of the Engadget team quit.

AOL keeps outdoing itself in its search for the most annoying new media personalities to bless with a cashout and one-way trip to oblivion (Calacanis, Huffington, Harrington). And they keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#88

Post by jeremymims »

Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps).

- The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones they've invested in directly).

Federated Media (2 years after an investment by New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?s...

BrightCove article that was published without due diligence and later corrected eight days later: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=...

GroupMe article where they mention that the company has taken $12 million but neglect to mention they were part of the round through Betaworks: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-...

These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of other competing tech companies?

Funnily enough, the best resource to follow these connections is Crunchbase: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes

- The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy. Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors?

- The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the Boston Red Sox.

I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is about.

My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a matter of course.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#89

Post by jonknee »

jeremymims wrote: post #88

Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps). - The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech la…

Counterpoint, the NY Times has an ethics policy that would never have allowed anything like TechCrunch (even before the newly announced investment fund plan!).

http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#keeping

"44. Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except through the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, offer investment advice, or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians."

"They may not offer ideas or proposals to people who figure in their coverage or make investments in productions in their field. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) "

Etc etc.

The New York Times company owns a lot of stuff. So does AOL. AOL running an investment fund isn't shady in the least. Having an employee who covers tech startups on one of your media properties run a fund for you that invests in tech startups... Big difference. You don't see whoever's job it is to invest in Automattic at the NY Times out there writing A1 on the technology page.

The main difference here is there is a strict firewall at the New York Times Company and not at TechCrunch. Forget disclosure, the NY Times would never let Mike have the startups beat in the first place because of his personal investment activity. Make that professional investment activity and it's just that much more unacceptable.

Re: Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

#90

Post by cma »

9999 wrote: post #78
cma wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 TechCr…

How is that above all suspicion? If you want the candidate in office, murder his opponent for that reason, and then make sure not to actually go out and cast a vote for him, does that somehow make it less of a political assassination?

(I'm not equivocating)

Post reply on HN