4 ms·

Now this is just ludicrous. I say this is one of those old rules of an industry that needs changing. We have an image of a journalist as this hopeless romantic

by kloncks 15y ago

Now this is just ludicrous. I say this is one of those old rules of an industry that needs changing. We have an image of a journalist as this hopeless romantic, broke, and poor guy who's walking around taking care of our first amendment rights. As far as I'm concerned, as long as this doesn't impact a startup's coverage on TechCrunch - and it seems like it doesn't, and besides it's not like Arrington writes much lately - then I'm perfectly fine with this. It's just like any other investor; why should we deprive Journalists of the right to invest in anything as long as it's transparent? I'm sure journalists can own stock in companies (and might disclose it). This is no different. Let's stop with the Arrington/TechCrunch-bashing. Whether you agree with their positions or not, they're not in the wrong here.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
How would you feel if Arrington failed to cover your tech startup (even though you are getting other coverage) and you found out he was heavily invested in your competitor. It isn't likely to be about what he writes as much as about what he doesn't write. Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to invest. The question is how much investing in the companies he is covering will cause problems. The fact that AOL is saying nobody else gets to do it implies they tend to think it will cause problems. The most interesting twist to this, though, is that there is a lot of potential value from Arrington being directly in the game instead of watching it. But to brush it off and say there is no potential for significant abuse here is naive, IMO. EDIT: One other thing, we aren't talking about some writer at TechCrunch. We are talking about the guy to drives it. That also colors it significantly, and not in nice hues of rose.
- jallmann 15y ago
  The media makes no pretense about providing fair and unbiased coverage. Especially bloggers. And this is Techcrunch we're talking about. If they omit covering a startup (or give it a bad review) due to staff investments elsewhere, well, that's how it goes. Roll with the punches, there are other ways to get press.
benologist 15y ago
You'll never know if it does impact a startup's coverage. Tons of startups email and most get ignored legitimately. When you're competing with w/e investment of Arrington's that provides them all the excuse they need to make sure you don't get a writeup. Either way all you're going to see is no reply.

by kloncks 15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

How would you feel if Arrington failed to cover your tech startup (even though you are getting other coverage) and you found out he was heavily invested in your competitor. It isn't likely to be about what he writes as much as about what he doesn't write. Nobody is suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to invest. The question is how much investing in the companies he is covering will cause problems. The fact that AOL is saying nobody else gets to do it implies they tend to think it will cause problems. The most interesting twist to this, though, is that there is a lot of potential value from Arrington being directly in the game instead of watching it. But to brush it off and say there is no potential for significant abuse here is naive, IMO. EDIT: One other thing, we aren't talking about some writer at TechCrunch. We are talking about the guy to drives it. That also colors it significantly, and not in nice hues of rose.

jallmann 15y ago
The media makes no pretense about providing fair and unbiased coverage. Especially bloggers. And this is Techcrunch we're talking about. If they omit covering a startup (or give it a bad review) due to staff investments elsewhere, well, that's how it goes. Roll with the punches, there are other ways to get press.

benologist 15y ago

You'll never know if it does impact a startup's coverage. Tons of startups email and most get ignored legitimately. When you're competing with w/e investment of Arrington's that provides them all the excuse they need to make sure you don't get a writeup. Either way all you're going to see is no reply.