9 ms·
AOL Asks Us If We Can Tone It Down
- johnitsagal 16y agostring.indexOf() is O(n), whereas the object-property-lookup is O(1). I guess indexOf is fast enough anyway given the size of the dictionary.
- statictype 16y agoIs this a bug in HN? I guess this was meant to be posted to the dictionary/javascript topic?
- johnitsagal 16y agoMore likely my mistake; yes it was intended for http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2329940 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2329940 . Why are people upvoting my comment?!
- jeromec 16y agoApparently discussing code on Hacker News is never off-topic ;)
- jedsmith 16y agoI upvoted it because I was looking for the underlying meaning of an elegant comment. Surely it means something, I said...
- jacoblyles 16y agoIt's nice to see some hard tech content every now and then, even if non-sequitir.
- bgentry 16y agoI love seeing stuff like this published.. Even though this one release may not be representative of the company as a whole, at least it gives us some reason to believe in TechCrunch's journalistic integrity.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoI don't see how this says anything about their integrity. Integrity is when you do something against your best interest because it's the right thing to do. Since AOL seems to have given them free reign to attack their sister sites there's no risk in this. In fact it's in their best interest because it drives page views. I'm not saying it says something bad about their integrity I'm simply saying it's not really relevant to a discussion about their integrity.
- bgentry 16y agoIs it not a compromise of your journalistic integrity to alter your published opinions because a partner/parent company is afraid that the truth makes them look bad?
- TomOfTTB 16y agoIt is if the parent company told you to alter your story. That's not what happened here. What happened was some low level employee whose job it was to be an advocate for the studio asked them to alter the story. They had every right to say no. But it doesn't mean it shows great integrity to say no to a polite request from a low level employee.
- jfager 16y agoIf TechCrunch had altered their published opinion because they were pressured by their parent company or their subject, then yes, you could take that information and infer they compromised their journalistic integrity. But that doesn't imply that you can take an instance of them not altering their opinion in the face of pressure and infer that they have integrity, because it's possible that they could do the exact same thing out of pure self-interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
- hartror 16y agoThey strive very hard to appear trustworthy which while admirable really proves nothing and everything they (and others) print should still be taken with a grain of salt. What they are trying to do is prove a negative to their readers i.e they don't ever take brides. It is in fact it is only practical to prove a positive i.e that they have in at least one instance taken a bribe. As the old adage goes "Don't believe everything you read."
- Charuru 16y agoI'm sorry, my logic module must be acting faulty. How does this prove that they have taken a bribe?
- waterlesscloud 16y agoCritic Scott Weinberg announced on Twitter he will no longer write for Moviefone due to this. Kudos to him. http://twitter.com/scottEweinberg/status/47766848476946432 http://twitter.com/scottEweinberg/status/47766848476946432
- zakj 16y agoMoviefone's response: http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/03/15/moviefones-response-to-the-techcrunch-post/ http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/03/15/moviefones-response-to-...
- MJR 16y agoThis is important: We never told TechCrunch to change the post in any way. Then to quote the letter: I think their issue is just with some of the text. Let me know if you're able to take another look at it and make any edits. That's a very PC way of saying change the post. They sounded like they expected compliance. They're expectations were wrong.
- synnik 16y agoAnd immediately following that quote: "so if you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine" It sounds like they expected nothing and this was a CYA email, knowing TechCrunch would not comply, but allowing them to say, "We tried."
- kenjackson 16y agoYeah, this is common. Otherwise this moviefone rep gets grief for not even talking to the author. Now the moviefone rep can say, I talked to her and she's not making the edits.
- lwat 16y ago'We're just the messenger!'
- jedsmith 16y ago...but not the pawn!
- TillE 16y agoYeah, that's a pretty awful defence. Passing it along and especially asking for a response is, if not tacit endorsement of the message ("Let me know if you're able to take another look at it and make any edits."), certainly implied pressure on the reviewer. The ethical thing to do would be to say, with slightly nicer words, "sorry, we don't interfere with TechCrunch, we didn't publish the review, go tell them yourselves."
- adamdecaf 16y ago(Note: I didn't finish this article, I skimmed it.) Whenever I read something like the following: > "Apparently, the post was not enough of a blowjob for Summit," The level of reporting drops to the floor. How is this professional at all? That phrase made me close the tab; TechCrunch has had its fair share of childness, but this is an all time low. Really guys? Really?
- michaeldhopkins 16y agoPlease explain. Does TC have a policy of not using language like that? It didn't surprise me to see it, although it would keep me from sending it to some people. In my opinion, professional writing is crafting a good house stylebook and sticking to it. It's not necessary to write like a newspaper on the Internet, although I like that too.
- YuriNiyazov 16y agoFirst of all, this is not an all-time low. A few years back when Arrington took a personal vendetta against Blaine Cook of Twitter was an all time low. This is peanuts compared to that. Second of all, there are different sides to professionalism. In my opinion, exposing an attempt at perverting editorial integrity is highly professional, and using vulgar language while doing so is very minor peanuts. You have your priorities very skewed.
- jedsmith 16y agoAre blowjobs really that offensive, to make you comment about it? I mean, on the scale of offensive horrors, blowjobs can't be too far up there, can they? I'm honestly asking because someone else made the same remark in the comments on the post, and I simply cannot comprehend how this is a big deal; am I too open-minded or young to see how the imagery was offensive? My wife's very Mormon family has joked with me about far worse subjects, so I don't really have any perspective here. I know people get offended, but I've never really dug into why.
- forensic 16y agoDude.. Mormons are freaks when it comes to sex. Pick a different example.
- grandalf 16y agoThis sort of post has to be the best thing (only good thing?) about the AOL acquisition of TC.
- thesethings 16y agoI know TechCrunch has a bad rap around here. But one needn't like TechCrunch or believe in its integrity to appreciate a little dent in the armor of old school gatekeepers. Hollywood publicists have traditional entertainment media in a tough spot, able to withhold access to "talent" without some sort wink + nod about what the story will be. Of course many outlets do not kiss ass and still get courted by Hollywood creatives. But they need to establish that voice early on (Perez Hilton, Pink is the New Blog), not do a crazy 180 (What if Entertainment Tonight all of a sudden asked Tom Cruise a truly tough question?). I think it's important that "big" tech media establish some boundaries early on. Sure TechCrunch gets some easy traffic for this. But that doesn't mean it's not also cool.
- cookiecaper 16y agoIt's the same kind of overdramatic reaction that TechCrunch is known for. The email even said that TechCrunch had no obligation to comply. Probably some guy called Moviefone and said, "I see you guys own TechCrunch now, can you ask them to change their story?" and the guy said, "Uh, I guess I can ask for you, but no promises...", and then wrote that email, and now TechCrunch, in typical fashion, is blowing something way out of proportion, which in turn generates more publicity for itself, AOL, The Source Code, and Moviefone anyway. I don't see much to praise here. The intentions might have been good, but otherwise it's a waste of space and time for everyone that isn't getting publicity out of the deal.
- thesethings 16y agoI hear ya. But I think maybe my main point didn't get through. I'm not praising TechCrunch, or speaking to their intention at all. I'm delighting in the outing of a well-worn Hollywood practice that ideally will not work as well as they try to court the Internets. If any publicist, PR firm, or studio starts to feel even a little self-conscious about massaging a story, i think that's great. And regardless of TC's intention, I think that's a little more likely after today.
- notahacker 16y agoThe original email is pretty much relationship management 101. Client Y asks for X, you observe that X is well outside your area of responsibility and not likely to happen, they ask you to make enquiries, so you email the relevant person and then diplomatically reword their response. We passed your feedback on to TechCrunch. TechCrunch were grateful for their invitation to your event and noted they had not been advised of any publishing restrictions. They observed the abrasive, sceptical tone of the article is their house journalistic style and that far from damaging readers' perceptions of your film, it is likely to have raised awareness of your film in a key target market. The editorial freedom of TechCrunch is very important to AOL. I've sent emails along the lines of "X enquired whether their press release sent yesterday was newsworthy" and even "X has asked for [something] because [reason] and I am sure the answer will be no. Please confirm that that is the case" before. I can perfectly understand TechCrunch's motivations for publishing: "Hey, we're standing up against AOL like we said we would. Now give us more pageviews", but only assume the rest of the chorus of hostility directed towards the carefully worded email emanates from people who don't have to deal with corporate customers on a daily basis, or can afford to tell them to jump off a bridge.
- joshes 16y agoI find it interesting, if a tad unrelated, that when you see the summary of the article on the front page of Techcrunch, this line reads, "Apparently, the post was not fawning enough for Summit..." whereas when you click through to the article it reads, "Apparently, the post was not enough of a blowjob for Summit."
- TillE 16y agoI've known some sites to scrub naughty language from the front page, supposedly to avoid being blocked by parental-control type software. Anything goes on the rest of the site, though. Dunno if it actually works.
- hartror 16y agoAny child that cannot get around parental control software shouldn't be trying to read TechCrunch.
- davej 16y agoWhy did they post this? This just looks really unprofessional in my opinion. The appropriate response would be to just say 'no' and if Moviefone/AOL/whoever wouldn't accept a no, then sure go public with it. The company behind the film obviously got in touch with Moviefone and whinged about the interview. Moviefone were the people who made the connection in the first place so they then relayed the feedback to TechCrunch. Moviefone never played the AOL card, they were acting as the middleman because they were the guys who set up the connection. They just wanted to get 'some sort of information' from TechCrunch, so they could get back to Summit (the film company) and say "TechCrunch said x". Uncalled for but also unsurprising given its TechCrunch.
- gabrielroth 16y agoYou're taking an interesting position, advocating for less transparency. Is there a pressing reason why you think I shouldn't know about this?
- dholowiski 16y agoThe same reason you don't need to know about an argument I had with a co-worker. Why exactly is it your business?
- rokhayakebe 16y agoIt is if it affects the news he is getting.
- chime 16y agoIf you're giving me news, if I'm investing in your company or vice versa, if you're passing laws that affect me, if you manage my money, or if you can influence my career or means of livelihood in any significant way, I would most certainly want to know everything I can about you and the argument you had with your coworker. In most cases I may have no right to demand such information but it would definitely be in my interest to find as much as I can about it. Posts like these strengthen my trust in TC. If the article had been silently edited or redacted without anyone noticing, it would not affect my level of trust. But if someone else pointed out the redaction or edits, my level of trust in TC would certainly fall. So an article like this does more benefit than harm as far as my level of trust is concerned.
- jarin 16y agoJust to put this in terms we all can understand, posting about maintaining your journalistic integrity is like posting about only using FOSS software, posting about not taking venture capital, posting anti-GPL rants, posting about veganism, or posting about never programming PHP again, for the rest of us. It's something people do when they have strong convictions.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- brown9-2 16y agoThis headline seems incredibly overblown and designed to get more attention than it really deserves. One email from "a Moviefone/AOL Television representative" asking you to tone it down is not the same as "AOL" asking you to tone it down.
- spydertennis 16y agoI completely agree with this. I don't understand how an email from a Moviefone employee (just trying to do his/her job the way it works in their industry) asking for help from a sister site gets blown into AOL censoring TC. It seems like a more appropriate response would have been to email the Moviefone person back with a, "sorry, that's not how we do things here."
- PakG1 16y agoUnder the new AOL Way, linkbaiting seems to be a good thing. :)
- pavs 16y agoNo. This is exactly how TC has always worked. They are a nothing more than linkbaiting, content firm dressed as a legitimate news outlet.
- robryan 16y agoYeah everyone wins, the guy at AOL can be like the the movie company, well I tried but I have no control there, and any attention to the link bait article helps the AOL bottom line.
- thekevan 16y agoI agree, especially when the request to tone it done is followed by "I know of course that TechCrunch has its own voice and editorial standards, so if you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine..."
- nske 16y ago
- argmaps 16y agoCan you imagine a less inflammatory "tone it down" e-mail from AOL? If I'm AOL here, and I want to make it clear to all the Techcrunch readers that TC is going to keep its own voice, I set up exactly this kind of scenario, or high-five the TC employee that does. Either that or this is just another horseshit TC post that has no business on HN.
- dr_ 16y agoIs this really even a story? Shouldn't this be something the TechCrunch staff discusses amongst itself near the watercooler?
- nhangen 16y agoMeanwhile, TC posts another piece on Quora...
- btilly 16y agoThe points that I took away from this. - The movie industry is used to getting random articles changed when they don't like them. - Moviefone doesn't even fact verify these requests before passing them on to journalists. But does word them innocuously enough that they have plausible deniability. - TechCrunch had many choices of how to handle this. Their chosen strategy is apparently to blow any sign of manipulation public to let the rest of AOL know that they don't want to play these games with TechCrunch. - I read an article (http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/12/the-source-code/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/12/the-source-code/) about a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have read, and found that Hollywood still appears to believe that Microsoft runs tech. As is evidenced by their using Microsoft Tags in their game rather than the industry standard QR codes.
- sixtofour 16y agoI'd say the tags were more likely paid product placement, and not at all a judgment, much less an understanding, of who runs tech.
- smackfu 16y ago"The movie industry is used to getting random articles changed when they don't like them." They have a big stick: they can just remove access. Then what is a movie site / news org going to write about?
- mayukh 16y agoYet another example of when the person reporting the news becomes bigger than the news.. The S/N ratio at TC has gotten really really bad and its hard to find interesting/insightful stuff there anymore. It's a pity
- URSpider94 16y agoSigh. This is one of the reasons that I will miss newspapers when they are gone. Folks, one of the key tenets of traditional journalism is that advertising sales department is never, but never, allowed to ask anything of the editorial department. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it's easy to see how little requests to change content, "if you don't mind," could over time undermine the integrity of a news organization.
- webignition 16y agoRefer to "Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media" [1] for an understanding how the editorial content of mainstream newspapers is almost universally influenced by advertising dollars. [1] http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
- chc 16y agoAlso on TechCrunch, Paul Carr has written a really good rebuttal to Alexia's piece, pointing out that TechCrunch and Moviefone are two independent AOL properties, and it's no more fair to call some Moviefone flack "AOL" than it would be to refer to Alexia herself that way. Then he demands the head of the Moviefone editor-in-chief on a platter for her response to Alexia's article. http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/16/actually-aol-didnt-ask-us-to-tone-it-down-moviefone-did-and-their-editor-in-chief-should-be-fired-2/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/16/actually-aol-didnt-ask-us-t...
- anigbrowl 16y agoLa Tsotsis has clearly never read Variety. Hollywood folk are much nastier than Techcrunch about films/people they dislike.