3 ms·

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 doe

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.

cube13 16y ago
I said that the journalists should try to be unbiased, not that they themselves should be. It's a very subtle difference, but I know that it's impossible for them not to be unbiased. They are human, after all. The problem that I have with Arrington being allowed to invest in silicon valley startups, while maintaining his role as an editor of TC is that it presents a pretty clear conflict of interest. That knowledge alone would make me, a reader, question the intent behind any story. It makes it hard to take any of their coverage seriously, because for all I know, Arrington could be using his readership to enrich himself over actually reporting interesting news.