4 ms·

I 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. Sinc

I 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  It 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 ago
  If 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
  - bgentry 16y ago
    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. I didn't mean to imply that this was a total affirmation of TechCrunch's journalistic integrity, only that this was a sign that they may have some of it.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      The problem is their actual articles tend to lead one to believe the contrary. The only way TechCrunch seems to have any whiff of integrity is when they do an article that is explicitly about them showing off their integrity.

bgentry 16y ago

Is 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 ago
It 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 ago
If 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
- bgentry 16y ago
  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. I didn't mean to imply that this was a total affirmation of TechCrunch's journalistic integrity, only that this was a sign that they may have some of it.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    The problem is their actual articles tend to lead one to believe the contrary. The only way TechCrunch seems to have any whiff of integrity is when they do an article that is explicitly about them showing off their integrity.