3 ms·

So the story here is ... Techcrunch published a story about an acquisition that turned out to have no basis in fact. TMZ seems like a more reliable source for g

by ojbyrne 17y ago

So the story here is ... Techcrunch published a story about an acquisition that turned out to have no basis in fact. TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip.

_pius 17y ago
TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip. TMZ isn't a good example. When it comes to breaking celebrity news, they actually exercise a great deal of journalistic integrity and restraint. They're very reliable and very well-sourced.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have supported my argument. TMZ _is_ a better source.
  - _pius 17y ago
    My comment was meant to be agnostic to the merits of your argument. While we're talking about it, though, I think that this particular situation (reporting the Google-Yelp acquisition talks) is actually a bad example as well. TechCrunch reported that Google and Yelp were in talks for an acquisition. As far as I know, that is true and TechCrunch broke the story with original reporting. Then TechCrunch reported that Yelp walked away and talks broke down. As far as I know, that is also true and again they broke the story with original reporting. Remaining agnostic to your claim about TechCrunch, how does this situation support the argument that they are not reliable?
    - Hoff 17y ago
      What I actually heard: TechCrunch Erlang TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang, TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang
    - ojbyrne 17y ago
      How many other times have techcrunch reported "company x in late stages of being acquired by Google/Yahoo/Microsoft" followed by "Talks for company x being acquired break off?" I'd suggest quite a few. I realize that this can actually happen, but if it happens often enough then the story becomes non-news.
KWD 17y ago
You need to understand that things change in deals. On Friday you could have reported GM was closing down Saab and it would have been accurate, but on Sunday it was GM had received more inquiries on Saab and a deal may still be made. Just because the news has changed does not mean that there was not a basis in fact for the initial story.
metra 17y ago
Where does it say that there is no basis in fact?

by ojbyrne 17y ago

So the story here is ... Techcrunch published a story about an acquisition that turned out to have no basis in fact. TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip.

_pius 17y ago

TMZ seems like a more reliable source for gossip. TMZ isn't a good example. When it comes to breaking celebrity news, they actually exercise a great deal of journalistic integrity and restraint. They're very reliable and very well-sourced.

ojbyrne 17y ago
I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have supported my argument. TMZ _is_ a better source.
- _pius 17y ago
  My comment was meant to be agnostic to the merits of your argument. While we're talking about it, though, I think that this particular situation (reporting the Google-Yelp acquisition talks) is actually a bad example as well. TechCrunch reported that Google and Yelp were in talks for an acquisition. As far as I know, that is true and TechCrunch broke the story with original reporting. Then TechCrunch reported that Yelp walked away and talks broke down. As far as I know, that is also true and again they broke the story with original reporting. Remaining agnostic to your claim about TechCrunch, how does this situation support the argument that they are not reliable?
  - Hoff 17y ago
    What I actually heard: TechCrunch Erlang TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang, TechCrunch Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang Erlang
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    How many other times have techcrunch reported "company x in late stages of being acquired by Google/Yahoo/Microsoft" followed by "Talks for company x being acquired break off?" I'd suggest quite a few. I realize that this can actually happen, but if it happens often enough then the story becomes non-news.

KWD 17y ago

You need to understand that things change in deals. On Friday you could have reported GM was closing down Saab and it would have been accurate, but on Sunday it was GM had received more inquiries on Saab and a deal may still be made. Just because the news has changed does not mean that there was not a basis in fact for the initial story.

metra 17y ago

Where does it say that there is no basis in fact?