6 ms·

He is getting praise about it because most reporters would have preserved the connections they have with these people and not said a word. Arrington said up fr

by bl4k 16y ago

He is getting praise about it because most reporters would have preserved the connections they have with these people and not said a word. Arrington said up front that he was not invited to this dinner, he showed up expecting a quick chat or a rejection and knew that he was stirring trouble by showing up. He was tipped off that something was up because they all remained quiet, and chased up afterwards to find out that something fishy had indeed gone on (he confirmed with two people, one of those being the person who tipped him off to the meeting). As entrepreneurs, do we not want people like Arrington fishing out stories like this? Can't we appreciate that the reason he went public is to let the public be aware that something might be happening. I can see how people might be arguing that what the angels are doing is not wrong, but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything. Besides, the post from McClure today confirmed everything Arrington wrote yesterday (it was that post that completely tipped my own opinion). Dave essentially said 'yes this is all what happen, but we aren't colluding because it is a free country'. Doesn't what Dave posted counter-argue everything you just wrote? And that is coming straight from somebody who was there, not somebody who read about it online and then formed an opinion.

grovulent 16y ago
Your claim: "but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything." ...is about as fallacious as it gets. I totally support your sentiment that journalists should be out there taking down the bastards of the world. And we suffer from such a dearth of this that I am hardly surprised that so many people want to believe that this is what is happening here. But how can you possibly assert that just because I'm saying that Arrington shouldn't have broke the story in the manner that he did - that it follows that I'm arguing that journalists should just process press releases? That's just a ridiculous implication. If Arrington had a genuine tip as to some bad goings on - then I certainly don't think that he should have just buried his head in the sand and ignore it. He should have INVESTIGATED it further before mouthing off. Even if he had some balls in making his post - you're confusing his balls with good journalism. Good journalism is to go further than just gossip, it's to go further than just to mouth off... It's possible I've got this wrong. Maybe Arrington here has got the integrity of a Berstein and Woodwoard duo sourcing information from a DeepThroat type personage. I just don't see any evidence of this. If anyone does - I'd be keen to see it.
- bl4k 16y ago
  "He should have INVESTIGATED it further" You mean something like speaking to two people who were at the meeting and confirming it with them prior to publishing? Good idea..
  - grovulent 16y ago
    And these are competing VCs yeah? Because they would have no interest in making their competitors look bad? Absolutely it required further investigation than two barside chats... certainly before one starts throwing the muck which is pretty hard to wash off - innocent or not. Imagine it hypothetically - you meet with a few of your competitors to discuss some issues and a couple of them immediately turn to a report and lie and say that you're being evil. The reporter goes ahead and publishes these claims without even trying to independently check them, and without even asking you your side first (and Arrington gave no indication in his article that he did either of these things). Now, as per the hypothetical... how would you feel about it? Now I'm not saying these folks were lying - but the point is, how do we know?
    - bl4k 16y ago
      You're right that we don't know, but as I mentioned above it was McClure's post that tipped me because it confirmed most of what happen (McClure even said 'it's not that your post is wrong'). I can imagine a scenario where the VCs discussed agreeing not to out-bid each other in deals and to work together without actively knowing that what they were doing could be seen as a problem by others. In the TC article, the issue at the core here only came up because on of the VC's "started feeling uncomftable". So it could turn out that they thought they were innocently discussing some of these points and were so caught up in themselves that nobody took a step back and analyzed the situation (which is why I think it was McClure - a relatively new 'vc' - was the person who tipped Arrington off and was the person who felt uncomfortable).
- blasdel 16y ago
  Woodward and Bernstein had far less integrity than Arrington! Arrington's source was one of the potential conspirators, and he's blowing it up early to kill it and get it out there so more sources either publish or leak. Woodward and Bernstein were being spoonfed almost every drop of information from a single source, the acting head of the FBI — they were used as stenographers by the professional part of the government to take down the elected part. They would have never been canonized as the pinnacle of journalism had they revealed their source twenty years earlier.

by bl4k 16y ago

grovulent 16y ago

Your claim: "but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything." ...is about as fallacious as it gets. I totally support your sentiment that journalists should be out there taking down the bastards of the world. And we suffer from such a dearth of this that I am hardly surprised that so many people want to believe that this is what is happening here. But how can you possibly assert that just because I'm saying that Arrington shouldn't have broke the story in the manner that he did - that it follows that I'm arguing that journalists should just process press releases? That's just a ridiculous implication. If Arrington had a genuine tip as to some bad goings on - then I certainly don't think that he should have just buried his head in the sand and ignore it. He should have INVESTIGATED it further before mouthing off. Even if he had some balls in making his post - you're confusing his balls with good journalism. Good journalism is to go further than just gossip, it's to go further than just to mouth off... It's possible I've got this wrong. Maybe Arrington here has got the integrity of a Berstein and Woodwoard duo sourcing information from a DeepThroat type personage. I just don't see any evidence of this. If anyone does - I'd be keen to see it.

bl4k 16y ago
"He should have INVESTIGATED it further" You mean something like speaking to two people who were at the meeting and confirming it with them prior to publishing? Good idea..
- grovulent 16y ago
  And these are competing VCs yeah? Because they would have no interest in making their competitors look bad? Absolutely it required further investigation than two barside chats... certainly before one starts throwing the muck which is pretty hard to wash off - innocent or not. Imagine it hypothetically - you meet with a few of your competitors to discuss some issues and a couple of them immediately turn to a report and lie and say that you're being evil. The reporter goes ahead and publishes these claims without even trying to independently check them, and without even asking you your side first (and Arrington gave no indication in his article that he did either of these things). Now, as per the hypothetical... how would you feel about it? Now I'm not saying these folks were lying - but the point is, how do we know?
  - bl4k 16y ago
    You're right that we don't know, but as I mentioned above it was McClure's post that tipped me because it confirmed most of what happen (McClure even said 'it's not that your post is wrong'). I can imagine a scenario where the VCs discussed agreeing not to out-bid each other in deals and to work together without actively knowing that what they were doing could be seen as a problem by others. In the TC article, the issue at the core here only came up because on of the VC's "started feeling uncomftable". So it could turn out that they thought they were innocently discussing some of these points and were so caught up in themselves that nobody took a step back and analyzed the situation (which is why I think it was McClure - a relatively new 'vc' - was the person who tipped Arrington off and was the person who felt uncomfortable).
blasdel 16y ago
Woodward and Bernstein had far less integrity than Arrington! Arrington's source was one of the potential conspirators, and he's blowing it up early to kill it and get it out there so more sources either publish or leak. Woodward and Bernstein were being spoonfed almost every drop of information from a single source, the acting head of the FBI — they were used as stenographers by the professional part of the government to take down the elected part. They would have never been canonized as the pinnacle of journalism had they revealed their source twenty years earlier.