3 ms·

I think that's not a fair analogy. PG isn't the curator for content on HN, and while you could argue he could algorithmically alter stories about YC companies,

I think that's not a fair analogy. PG isn't the curator for content on HN, and while you could argue he could algorithmically alter stories about YC companies, or manually remove stories, this isn't an editorial blog. It's a collection, and the users vote stories up and down. PG's goal from HN is to get a pulse of the tech community, see smart people who may be interesting to invest with in the future. Arrington theoretically runs a journalistic operation, and he brings up journalistic integrity when it suits him. This is a much stronger conflict of interest for something that perceives itself as journalistic. While the blog didn't bring up great examples of how this will hurt TC, I don't think it's an even analogy.

raganwald 15y ago
It's fast and loose, but to be honest I neither agree nor disagree with the post's premise, it just seemed like a good point to bring up to spark some discussion. As for journalistic integrity, my feeling is that conflict of interest in journalism is between a journalist and his employer, not between a journalist and his readership. Media properties all have strong biases fueled by the self-interest of their owners, the market they are attempting to serve with their product, or other factors. In the era of Wikileaks, Twitter, and blogs, journalistic integrity seems like a quaint notion, more unusual when it is present than when it is absent. I live in Toronto. None of my daily newspapers are unbiased. How about your town?
- Laments 15y ago
  I disagree with this assertion: "my feeling is that conflict of interest in journalism is between a journalist and his employer, not between a journalist and his readership." A lot of people view Arrington as the face of TechCrunch and I feel like his stories drive a significant amount of traffic to the portal. I, for one, know that I read stories with his name on it -- even if I'm not terribly interested in them. But, if Arrington's showing favoritism or is holding back, simply because he's invested in a company, it makes TechCrunch less relevant -- since someone else will break the story, or it may be biased. (And, let's be fair -- nobody expects complete impartiality from an investor. They're already partial, else they wouldn't be investing.) To quote Arrington, "There’s a period of time with any investment when I know an investment is possible or likely but it can’t be announced yet. During that time I don’t write about the startup at all, because I can’t disclose the investment. When another writer wants to break a story we may have to hold that story, or it becomes a forcing function in announcing sooner." And this is the hart of the debate. To address your other point: I know many, many, many journalists who have incredible integrity -- just avid news consumers today are becoming disenfranchised by news media (and I'd like to point out that Wikileaks, Twitter, and blogs are none of the above) does not mean that it does not exist. Would you really rather go to the biased news source if the unbiased one was right next to it? This is the type of decision that is an inflection point -- because Arrington's refusal to stop will allow a lot of tech journalists to begin lobbying hand grenades at any unfavorable TC press ("I sure hope that Arrington doesn't have a hand in that! hahaha.")
  - raganwald 15y ago
    if Arrington's showing favoritism or is holding back, simply because he's invested in a company, it makes TechCrunch less relevant It's up to you whether you want to read his stuff or not, and why. However, I do not believe that bias in and of itself disqualifies a speaker/writer/source from relevancy: http://raganwald.posterous.com/bias http://raganwald.posterous.com/bias By way of a similar example, most people think Daring Fireball is biased. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Gruber's investments, just his passion. Some people avoid his writing because of his bias, some embrace it, and some--like me--try to include it in a portfolio of things I read. I have my own reasons for not reading Techcrunch, but Arrington's investments isn't one of them.
    - cube13 15y ago
      >By way of a similar example, most people think Daring Fireball is biased. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Gruber's investments, just his passion. Some people avoid his writing because of his bias, some embrace it, and some--like me--try to include it in a portfolio of things I read. The difference between TechCrunch and Daring Fireball is that Gruber presents Daring Fireball as his personal blog. It's not presented as a news source. Gruber is more of a pundit than a journalist, and he wears his biases on his sleeves, showing them to everyone. He's using the soapbox that DF gives him to push his views. TC, on the other hand, is presenting itself as a news site. The people on it, unless they are offering commentary, are supposed to be Journalists. Their reporting should strive to not be biased, which includes reporting any potential conflicts of interest(i.e. investing) in a company within the coverage of the company. A reader should think that the coverage on the site is noteworthy because it is news, and should not have to question the author's intentions or reasons for featuring it. Otherwise, it's just advertisement at best. At worst, it's just self enrichment by the author. I should note that I'm fine with with this, if the site presents themselves as such. If you're going to be biased, announce it to the universe. Don't hide behind being a "journalist" as your reason for not disclosing anything.
      - raganwald 15y ago
        As a matter of personal morality, I would say this. I don't believe that journalists need to >try to be< unbiased. However, if I were talking to someone who does believe that journalists need to >try to be< unbiased, I would be careful not to claim that my own writing is journalism. No matter what I believe the word means, knowingly misleading someone else is wrong. I don't know if Arrington knowingly misleads people by claiming to be a journalist, but if he is deliberately setting an expectation of lack of bias and lack of personal interest in order to profit from that, well, we can both agree that regardless of what journalism means to me or to Arrington, it is wrong to set a false expectation.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

raganwald 15y ago

It's fast and loose, but to be honest I neither agree nor disagree with the post's premise, it just seemed like a good point to bring up to spark some discussion. As for journalistic integrity, my feeling is that conflict of interest in journalism is between a journalist and his employer, not between a journalist and his readership. Media properties all have strong biases fueled by the self-interest of their owners, the market they are attempting to serve with their product, or other factors. In the era of Wikileaks, Twitter, and blogs, journalistic integrity seems like a quaint notion, more unusual when it is present than when it is absent. I live in Toronto. None of my daily newspapers are unbiased. How about your town?

Laments 15y ago
I disagree with this assertion: "my feeling is that conflict of interest in journalism is between a journalist and his employer, not between a journalist and his readership." A lot of people view Arrington as the face of TechCrunch and I feel like his stories drive a significant amount of traffic to the portal. I, for one, know that I read stories with his name on it -- even if I'm not terribly interested in them. But, if Arrington's showing favoritism or is holding back, simply because he's invested in a company, it makes TechCrunch less relevant -- since someone else will break the story, or it may be biased. (And, let's be fair -- nobody expects complete impartiality from an investor. They're already partial, else they wouldn't be investing.) To quote Arrington, "There’s a period of time with any investment when I know an investment is possible or likely but it can’t be announced yet. During that time I don’t write about the startup at all, because I can’t disclose the investment. When another writer wants to break a story we may have to hold that story, or it becomes a forcing function in announcing sooner." And this is the hart of the debate. To address your other point: I know many, many, many journalists who have incredible integrity -- just avid news consumers today are becoming disenfranchised by news media (and I'd like to point out that Wikileaks, Twitter, and blogs are none of the above) does not mean that it does not exist. Would you really rather go to the biased news source if the unbiased one was right next to it? This is the type of decision that is an inflection point -- because Arrington's refusal to stop will allow a lot of tech journalists to begin lobbying hand grenades at any unfavorable TC press ("I sure hope that Arrington doesn't have a hand in that! hahaha.")
- raganwald 15y ago
  if Arrington's showing favoritism or is holding back, simply because he's invested in a company, it makes TechCrunch less relevant It's up to you whether you want to read his stuff or not, and why. However, I do not believe that bias in and of itself disqualifies a speaker/writer/source from relevancy: http://raganwald.posterous.com/bias http://raganwald.posterous.com/bias By way of a similar example, most people think Daring Fireball is biased. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Gruber's investments, just his passion. Some people avoid his writing because of his bias, some embrace it, and some--like me--try to include it in a portfolio of things I read. I have my own reasons for not reading Techcrunch, but Arrington's investments isn't one of them.
  - cube13 15y ago
    >By way of a similar example, most people think Daring Fireball is biased. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Gruber's investments, just his passion. Some people avoid his writing because of his bias, some embrace it, and some--like me--try to include it in a portfolio of things I read. The difference between TechCrunch and Daring Fireball is that Gruber presents Daring Fireball as his personal blog. It's not presented as a news source. Gruber is more of a pundit than a journalist, and he wears his biases on his sleeves, showing them to everyone. He's using the soapbox that DF gives him to push his views. TC, on the other hand, is presenting itself as a news site. The people on it, unless they are offering commentary, are supposed to be Journalists. Their reporting should strive to not be biased, which includes reporting any potential conflicts of interest(i.e. investing) in a company within the coverage of the company. A reader should think that the coverage on the site is noteworthy because it is news, and should not have to question the author's intentions or reasons for featuring it. Otherwise, it's just advertisement at best. At worst, it's just self enrichment by the author. I should note that I'm fine with with this, if the site presents themselves as such. If you're going to be biased, announce it to the universe. Don't hide behind being a "journalist" as your reason for not disclosing anything.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      As a matter of personal morality, I would say this. I don't believe that journalists need to >try to be< unbiased. However, if I were talking to someone who does believe that journalists need to >try to be< unbiased, I would be careful not to claim that my own writing is journalism. No matter what I believe the word means, knowingly misleading someone else is wrong. I don't know if Arrington knowingly misleads people by claiming to be a journalist, but if he is deliberately setting an expectation of lack of bias and lack of personal interest in order to profit from that, well, we can both agree that regardless of what journalism means to me or to Arrington, it is wrong to set a false expectation.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]