4 ms·

I'm at a complete loss as to why presumably intelligent people pay attention to technophobes like miek Arrington. It was obvious to me many years ago that lack

by lzw 16y ago

I'm at a complete loss as to why presumably intelligent people pay attention to technophobes like miek Arrington. It was obvious to me many years ago that lacked integrity. McClure and Paul Graham, for instance, are people who I disagree with on at least one subject, but they have integrity. I cannot say the same for Arrington. He seems to be pathological to me.

alttab 16y ago
He runs a business, and he tries to keep it relevant. A SV blog about start-ups that has to come out with 5 blog posts a day? You're going to run out of things to write about... why not create them? I personally haven't dug deep enough into any of the flame-baity stories of tech-crunch, but considering more than half of them have typos, grammatical errors that make it difficult to read sometimes, little or no substantiated FACTS, make it all seem like gossip. A Tech-TMZ if you will. It seems like they crank those stories out so fast they don't even bother to proof read them. Some are starting to believe they don't bother to stop and evaluate the merit of the story to begin with. Techcrunch is only relevant because enough people go there to GAWK at MA's posts. Any of the legit stories are on other news sites within a day, usually better written and with more information. Its obvious that TC can be an armpit sometimes because it has the most stories written about itself. I would be willing to entertain the idea that even if Mike was on to something, his reputation and execution on this story is like the boy crying wolf for real but no one takes him seriously anymore.
- alttab 16y ago
  Don't understand the down votes - look at what other people are writing about this story on their blogs and in the comments. My sentiment seems to be adopted widely. God forbid someone on HN evaluates TechCrunch.

4 ms·

I'm at a complete loss as to why presumably intelligent people pay attention to technophobes like miek Arrington. It was obvious to me many years ago that lack

by lzw 16y ago

alttab 16y ago
He runs a business, and he tries to keep it relevant. A SV blog about start-ups that has to come out with 5 blog posts a day? You're going to run out of things to write about... why not create them? I personally haven't dug deep enough into any of the flame-baity stories of tech-crunch, but considering more than half of them have typos, grammatical errors that make it difficult to read sometimes, little or no substantiated FACTS, make it all seem like gossip. A Tech-TMZ if you will. It seems like they crank those stories out so fast they don't even bother to proof read them. Some are starting to believe they don't bother to stop and evaluate the merit of the story to begin with. Techcrunch is only relevant because enough people go there to GAWK at MA's posts. Any of the legit stories are on other news sites within a day, usually better written and with more information. Its obvious that TC can be an armpit sometimes because it has the most stories written about itself. I would be willing to entertain the idea that even if Mike was on to something, his reputation and execution on this story is like the boy crying wolf for real but no one takes him seriously anymore.
- alttab 16y ago
  Don't understand the down votes - look at what other people are writing about this story on their blogs and in the comments. My sentiment seems to be adopted widely. God forbid someone on HN evaluates TechCrunch.