AOL = TechCrunch and AOL = CrunchFund (as it is AOL's capital seeding the fund) So even if the fund had a different name, and Arrington doesn't work for AOL di

AOL = TechCrunch and AOL = CrunchFund (as it is AOL's capital seeding the fund) So even if the fund had a different name, and Arrington doesn't work for AOL directly, there is still a conflict of interest. As Paul Carr said in his article, are TC journalists likely to write a really negative piece on a CrunchFund company knowing that Tim Armstrong ultimately runs both? Would the Wall Street Journal or the New Times start an investment fund and invest in the exact companies they are reporting on? IMHO they would not, as they realise their core business's need for independence. If AOL want to follow through on their strategy "AOL is planning on being the largest high quality content producer for digital media." they need to realise that they are a media business and so need to follow the same rules basic rules for good journalism as every one else in their industry. IMHO this is a very poor decision by Armstrong. For another glamorous dabble in the VC world where he will probably make about 10% ($2M) per annum, he could be betting the entire AOL business. Not much upside and a whooooole lotta downside = bad trade.