TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
techcrunch.com
TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
1–10 of 114 posts
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#2Good riddance!
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#3TechCrunch's days were numbered the day Arrington sold it to AOL. The honeymoon rarely lasts more than a year, so this is right on time.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#4I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about the internal structure of TechCrunch in particular (and AOL's web properties more generally) but this article strikes me as being enormously counter-productive.
What benefit is there in airing all your dirty laundry like this? Publicly 'shaming' AOL into backing down?
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#5I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about the internal structure of TechCrunch in particular (and AOL's web properties more generally) but this article strikes me as being enormously counter-productive. What benefit is there in airing all your dirty laundry like this? Publicly 'shaming' AOL into backing down?
Maybe the author is motivated by their personal reputation?
What benefit is there to keeping it all secret?
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#6I'm just surprised that they actually published that on TechCrunch. I would be even more surprised if AOL doesn't have that deleted within the hour.
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#7> TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
Nope, still dramatic and hyperbolic as ever!
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#8Article deleted from TechCrunch in 3.2.1..
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#9[deleted]
Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over
#10I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about the internal structure of TechCrunch in particular (and AOL's web properties more generally) but this article strikes me as being enormously counter-productive. What benefit is there in airing all your dirty laundry like this? Publicly 'shaming' AOL into backing down?
Maybe the author is motivated by their personal reputation? What benefit is there to keeping it all secret?
I suppose you could argue the benefit of keeping it private is that it doesn't let their readers see all the personal drama and histrionics that could impinge their editorial/journalistic credibility e.g. it's their job to report tech news, not to be a platform to communicate their personal feelings about internal office politics.
I get the feeling that this article is precisely as a result of the 'new media' model of content production at sites like TechCrunch. The author rightly lauds this models dynamism and agility in the article on his personal site (that was linked in the article) but do you think something like this, that's so close to verging on unprofessional, would happen at a more conventional publication? Because I certainly don't.