3 ms·
So a blogger gets a tip from a source, knows the people involved, acts on it and smells a rat. He sticks around and talks to a few people he knows, makes a few
by mixmax 16y ago
So a blogger gets a tip from a source, knows the people involved, acts on it and smells a rat. He sticks around and talks to a few people he knows, makes a few calls and gets a breaking story.
Sounds to me like bloggers are the new journalists and that traditional media is in big big trouble.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- sachinag 16y agoFelix Salmon does this, and he's a blogger working for Reuters. Dan Primack does this, and he's a blogger working for Fortune. It's not about old/new media - it's about hustle.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Alex3917 16y agoRead Manufacturing Consent or any of the books that have been written about the MSM since then. It's very much about old media verse new media. If this were the NYT they'd probably tell Arrington he couldn't run the story because it'd interfere with either their ad sales or else their access to sources. For example, just look at how/why they covered up their knowledge of the warrantless wiretapping until after Bush got reelected. Whereas with Arrington there's no one to tell him he can't do it because it's his blog, and because he's not part of some mega corporation the chances of a story like this killing the revenue of some part of his empire are infinitely lower.
- vaksel 16y agoa breaking story would name names...him not naming names just means he can use this as a hammer to get better terms for Techcrunch(either I get exclusive to every deal you guys do...or your names will be posted)
- metamemetics 16y agoI would argue it's more ethical to discourage and prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. Seeking satisfaction from "catching the bad guy" (naming names) is to setup a market dependent on the need for new crimes. Arrington did the right thing. It's not about whether he caught a criminal, it's about whether he prevented someone from becoming one.
- eavc 16y agoSomeone (maybe everyone) in that group knew what they were doing to be wrong. I doubt that they will abandon their ethical choice; they'll find smarter ways to do what they'd intended all along. One thing that might work is if someone in the group has damning correspondence, everyone will panic and promise to "never talk about that summer again," genuinely preventing future problems.
- jon_dahl 16y agoMaybe. This approach shows some integrity too, though. Not everything has to turn into a scandal (at least if inappropriate behavior stops quickly). Call me soft on crime.
- drusenko 16y agounlikely. business in the valley is not done by extortion. more likely is that he doesn't want anyone to get in trouble, he's just putting them on notice.
- mattmaroon 16y agoHim not naming names means that people will continue to give him information in the future. He'd be shooting himself in the foot by naming a source that requested anonymity.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoThere's an interesting conundrum there too. He can't name names without either omitting (and hence identifying) his source/s, or including (and inditing) them. Either way he loses that/those source/s for future stories. He did the only thing he could do, besides staying silent. If it happened to be the right thing as well, so much the better.
- metamemetics 16y ago>Sounds to me like bloggers are the new journalists Journalism used to be considered the fourth branch of government, keeping the other branches and large institutions in check. Blogs are the startups of the journalism world. As America moves from bureaucratic capitalism with large institutions to entrepreneurial capitalism with many small firms & independent players, the responsibility to call out unethical behavior is transferred from news companies to the individual.