3 ms·
Why 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 wou
by davej 16y ago
Why 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.
- davej 16y agoI'd trust them a bit more if they said 'no' and spent their time posting newsworthy articles instead of feigning outrage to get a bit of attention.
- gabrielroth 16y agoI understand a lot better when it's you having the argument. Why wouldn't you want me to know about an argument someone else had with a co-worker?
- davej 16y agoIs there a pressing reason why you should know about this? This is a non-story. A minor spat that TechCrunch is trying to cash in on. Nothing happened here. Real journalists ensure that their stories have a certain level of newsworthiness before they post them.
- gabrielroth 16y agoThis particular case is not the world's biggest deal, but in general I'd like as much information as possible about my sources of information. Even if you don't care about the story at all, I find it striking that you think it should be kept secret.
- davej 16y agoOnly publishing articles that are deemed to be newsworthy is not the same as keeping it secret. You seem to think that I'm in favour of some sort of a cover-up, there's nothing to cover-up.
- dholowiski 16y agoI totally agree. A simple reply with the word "no" would have sufficed. If they push it, sure go public, but to make such a big issue of it at this point is just dis-respecting your employer (or owner, or whatever). Agreed on your second point too... not surprising coming from TechCrunch.
- hubb 16y agoagreed. i'm also wondering why he felt the need to obliquely link to a graphic picture of a group of dead seals. you stay classy, techcrunch