3 ms·
There's only half the story here because Arrington isn't naming names. It was a meeting of a group of people in a semi-public place, I don't see why he hasn't
by dotBen 16y ago
There's only half the story here because Arrington isn't naming names.
It was a meeting of a group of people in a semi-public place, I don't see why he hasn't named who was there:
"So, I went into the restaurant to find Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh, Chris, ..." (I'm just naming, um, random first names here folks for the purpose of illustration!)
He's clearly running a power play around the identities...
- kareemm 16y agoer, because he wants to maintain relationships with his friends who were around the table?
- guelo 16y agoOne of the major nono's of journalism is becoming too close to your sources.
- chollida1 16y ago> One of the major nono's of journalism is becoming too close to your sources. Another one would be "don't out your sources". Which he would have done if he had of named names.
- megablast 16y agoMaybe one day you will figure out the difference between coming "too close", and dropping peoples names at the first sign of a story. Maybe.
- AmericanOP 16y agoBecause Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh and Chris would have a defamation suit filed by end-of-day. Clearly MA reached out to the attendees.. I wonder what the other 8 or 9 had to say. That's the other half of the story.
- dotBen 16y agoIf Arrington lists a bunch of people were at a gathering, and they were, then there is nothing to sue over there. If he says "they were talking about pricing deals and how to club together to avoid convertable notes", and they were, then there is nothing to sue over even if he has named the people there. I don't actually get your comment. If we DON'T believe this group were talking about what Arrington is claiming then there is a bigger issue here regardless of whether people were named or not.
- bl4k 16y agoYou go from lawsuit to settlement in a punctuation mark where in reality it is months/years and millions of dollars. Never give a person wealthier than you a reason to sue you - regardless of if you are wrong or right.
- dotBen 16y agoI spent the earlier part of my career working for independent and free media and campaigning for free press. Of course you should never publish anything libelous or incorrect but it saddens me to no end to think that people wouldn't publish something that they could stand by as true, right and accurate simply because they were scared they might get sued. And certainly someone as the proprietor of a publication of record like TechCrunch (which while perhaps not the most whitest-of-white media outlet, still has something to stand for) owes it to his readership to do what's right. I guess it all comes down to why you are publishing in the first place - to communicate truth and facts or for power and ego (which sure, is hard to tell with TechCrunch at times)
- bl4k 16y agoIt is a process of journalism. He is using the story as leverage to fill in the remainder of the story. See how the Scamville story evolved. I think Arrington has shown time and again that he places the story and public interest above all else. To even suggest or insinuate that Arrington is only publishing this story to fuel his own ego is completely wrong. He likely burnt a lot of bridges with todays story and lost a lot of sources in order to give the public a very rare view of what takes place behind closed doors.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]