8 ms·

Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence

215 points by pathik 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Zakuzaa 15y ago
I'd like to see mass exodus of writers and creating their own brand new site. Sounds familiar.
- jmjerlecki 15y ago
  I could see MG Siegler joining Thisismynext/The Verge.
  - randall 15y ago
    And Bankoff (the guy who orchestrated the Weblogs, Inc. merger, and subsequent editorial strategy of the NewAOL which Armstrong is executing on today) would probably be more than happy to welcome them into the fold.
- gscott 15y ago
  They could be funded by Crunchfund
idlewords 15y ago
It's called "selling out" for a reason. If Michael Arrington is genuinely surprised that an acquirer is not holding to the sweet, sweet promises it made him at acquisition time, then he has no business being a tech journalist. The correct time for this kind of acute episode of journalistic integrity was before cashing the AOL check, not after. He was under no pressure to relinquish his independence. More likely he sees an opportunity to head for the exit with at least one suitcase still full of money.
Slimy 15y ago
I wonder how much of this whole brouhaha was staged.
- toddmorey 15y ago
  I was just going to post the same comment! 1) Quietly and privately agree on his role, then 2) stage a public melodrama for traffic, and finally 3) bring the drama to a resolution favorable to both TC and AOL. That's worth at least 4 or 5 record-traffic articles if played right. (I'm usually not this cynical, but then again, this is TechCrunch.)
hollerith 15y ago
This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  It's obvious that he has certain limits to his personal competence like us all and is unable to either seek or comprehend third-party advice once he's past the point of no return. This is not the first time that we've seen his personal drama detailed in public and it really detracts from the brand. Off the top of my head I'll cite the tablet project, Airbnb debacle, Calacanis just name a few. If Aol is listening they need to put distance between themselves and Arrington, not get closer.
- nknight 15y ago
  You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity: “TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.” This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    Where is he disclaiming journalistic integrity? Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
    - nknight 15y ago
      I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?
ojbyrne 15y ago
So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....
- jobu 15y ago
  NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I don't see a huge ethical problem. That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both hats. It brings a huge magnifying glass onto the bias in his articles, and possibly the articles of all those at TechCrunch.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    Is TechCrunch promising to always give full disclosure? The earlier articles this morning seemed to be very upset that anyone would think they need to do something like this, something so "old media" like.
  - recampbell 15y ago
    A more apt comparison is a GE board member working as a NBC reporter.
  - ojbyrne 15y ago
    I bet NBC Nightly News has a fairly rigorous and well-defined code of ethics.
    - anamax 15y ago
      Yup, but "code of ethics" means: A set of "rules" that sounds good to outsiders but lets insiders do what they want. Most "code of ethics" make it easy for insiders to call outsiders "unethical" for doing things that insiders do. For example, "journalists" are allowed to make up quotes. Outsiders aren't.
aresant 15y ago
Arrington & Armstrong created CrunchFund as partners and the controversy is purely Arrington's doing. This latest breathlessly pissed off post demonstrates Arrington can still post anything he likes to TechCrunch. So why not write a clear and concise explanation on TC to begin with? I'd submit that Arrington is ready to leave TC to focus on investing, and there's no better way to do that than with a massive page-view heavy controversy.
- petervandijck 15y ago
  Sure, Arrington doesn't care if he burns his bridges, he's ready to move on and he knows what a post like this will buy him (respect and enemies). That doesn't mean the controversy is empty though. It's still ball-sy and more than 99.99% of people in the business would do and yes, for that he gets respect points. Like it or not.
rationalbeats 15y ago
So instead of writing this message in an email to the powers at be at AOL, he writes a blog post about it, which is certain to escalate the situation? Why?
- jrockway 15y ago
  Page views. This is TechCrunch we're talking about. Nobody actually wants to read it, so they have to resort to tactics like this in order to get anyone to look at their site.
- nknight 15y ago
  This was already being played out in public. It's a PR battle, and Arrington thrives in massive public fights, while AOL has always been the big clumsy giant that can't find its ass with both hands. I think a better question is why wouldn't he want it to escalate?
- zackbelow 15y ago
  I am sure he has written and said many things to AOL at this point. He is grumpy, rich and thinks AOL crossed major boundary lines that were part of their original agreement. At this point, he knows that he can either: a) Get AOL to bow down to his rants (Charlie Sheen anyone?) and "reimplement" those boundaries. Basically he wants to stick it to the man that gave him 30 million to prove hes bigger than the man. b) buy TC back from AOL, probably for half as much as they paid. Inside I am sure he is thinkin this is awesome cuz either way dude walks away with 8 bajillion dollars, synonymous popularity in tech world and every chance in the world to start another uber blog/mediacompany/empire. Plus, he can pull a Steve Jobs even if he does quit, and resurrect the company at any time he wants to after AOL buries it and Ariana becomes Co-Editor..
- jkaljundi 15y ago
  To have an open discussion? To influence people? To have some fun? To be brutally honest?
mikek 15y ago
Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  I don't read TC regularly, but do they disclose when an article is written by someone who has a financial stake in the company being written about?
  - brackin 15y ago
    I side with Arrington too, AOL didn't stick to their promise and Huff Post is hardly editorial brilliance. They don't pay most of their staff and a lot of their content is just SEO spam. I mean all of these editors of Engadget left, keeping quiet but many hinted about the editorial aspects inside of AOL as one of the reasons they'd resigned.
    - brackin 15y ago
      By the way, yes they do. Every post Arrington will say he or someone at TC is an investor. Not that it's too regular.
      - tatsuke95 15y ago
        Are you sure about this? "Every post" is a strong statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Arrington is an implicit investor in YC, through the Angel Fund, and Techcrunch gave the YC startups a ton of coverage lately. The few articles that I read in the early going made no reference to this fact.
        brackin 15y ago
        YC startups have been given lots of press for years. You may be right, I don't know the specifics of the terms but YC startups have always had a lot of coverage because they're YC startups. I've seen far more bias from the mainstream press tech reporters towards certain startups. All these journalists seem to be hired by a number of startups. Seems like some are just reporting to help their career.
chugger 15y ago
wait for ThisIsMyNextCrunch to launch in the next few months.
- kr1shna 15y ago
  I've previously suggested that MG and some of the crew should go join the upcoming Verge
anonfortc 15y ago
This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game! So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole brouhaha by the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest he got himself in. Namely he was investing in companies he covers and now is starting a fund that would seem to be dedicated to investing in companies he covers. After the ny times called him out on the conflict, it was obvious that TechCrunch's claim of it being an independent news source would be utterly laughable. And that probably prompted Ariana to make her move. And now Arrington is making a bold stand by resigning in the name of "editorial independence". Probably he did not have a choice but to resign, not because of editorial independence from Ariana Huffington, but because of editorial independence from his own conflicts of interest. But by making this stand he very cleverly tried to divert the attention from his own fuckups and poison the waters for whoever Ariana tries to appoint to lead TechCrunch. Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the blatant hypocracy of Arringrton, but Ariana's career is so full of double dealing and questionable behavior that I doubt TechCrunch would be better with her. Like I said, it is the Raiders playing the Broncos, and I am not choosing sides just enjoying the violence.
- RockyMcNuts 15y ago
  ha! Arrington: I'm going to start raising a fund, with the Crunch name and telling investors they'll get privileged access to TechCrunch and covered companies. Ariana: Pffth! GTFO! Arrington: Editorial independence! Help, help, I'm being repressed! This from the guy who's started thumbing his nose at AOL the day they bought his company. Even started a feud with Engadget accusing them of some underhanded BS that ended when AOL had Arrington's back and most of the Engadget team quit. AOL keeps outdoing itself in its search for the most annoying new media personalities to bless with a cashout and one-way trip to oblivion (Calacanis, Huffington, Harrington). And they keep laughing all the way to the bank.
- petervandijck 15y ago
  The conflict of interest is a total red herring. Arrington has always disclosed much more than most. If you think it's not, you don't know how the (tech) news industry works.
suking 15y ago
drama queens
scottkrager 15y ago
Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.
jneal 15y ago
First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS. However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post and considers it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even possible?) One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they" want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as "ethical"? Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - unless TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of interest.
  - wmf 15y ago
    There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say, MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of independent writers who don't talk to each other).
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.
- 15y ago
rdouble 15y ago
I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster fuck is 10 years old. With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing in earnest.
- jackson71 15y ago
  SHOUTcast's recent week-long on and off outage and subsequent crippling of their APIs is evidence enough of how seriously (or lack thereof) they take some of their properties.
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  The life of any app is measured in years, the best of which is when you sell to a "larger organization that can use its widespread exposure to further grow the community" while it dies a couple of years later. Just look at Yahoo!'s portfolio. Arrington wanting his baby back is a bunch of BS. Reddit would be an anomaly, I'm happy to say, although it still has a ways to grow out of its niche.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Oh, to live in a world where MySpace was acquired by AOL instead of Rupert Murdoch.
mbreese 15y ago
Why do I have the feeling that we (the public) aren't the real target for these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we are only one side of. I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows up? Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?
- nikcub 15y ago
  I would become a lot more suspicious of this being a pageview drive if Arriana replied using huffingtonpost.com
  - brackin 15y ago
    It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.
    - teej 15y ago
      AOL has been making money hand-over-fist while being the brunt of insults for 10 years now - this wouldn't be the first time.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - altuzar 15y ago
        If he wanted independence, he sold because...?
      - nl 15y ago
        A (falling) ~10% profit margin and -8.40% year-on-year revenue growth isn't really making money "hand-over-fist" http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AOL+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AOL+Key+Statistics
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
I'm reminded of the link posted last week [1] arguing that founders make better CEOs. TechCrunch was a valuable asset for AOL to pick up precisely because of the way it was organized and managed. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jobss-law-why-founders-make-the-best-leaders/244439/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jo...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
freejoe76 15y ago
Glad more people are getting introduced to the term editorial independence.
credo 15y ago
Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests. However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch. Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder of CrunchFund. The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor (who also blogs - the Fred Wilson model).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- petervandijck 15y ago
  Or, he's standing up for his team. Saying the truth is always hard.
  - jfoutz 15y ago
    It's not his team. it's AOL's team. he sold it. this point however is pretty fascinating "Sell TechCrunch back to the original shareholders". I wonder if he'd be willing to put a number on that sale?
- tapp 15y ago
  > It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?
  - danbmil99 15y ago
    > Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow? No, he's a brand unto himself and he knows it, and is cashing in on that in an admirable way (from a game-theory perspective at least)
flocial 15y ago
This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life in them.
- nikcub 15y ago
  > how AOL managed stay alive selling overpriced dialup to old and ignorant people (not a joke)
adnam 15y ago
Get stuffed already.
Uchikoma 15y ago
I know I will be voted down, but this reminds me of PGs comments on the AirBbB threads.
jonknee 15y ago
Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to take part in their office politics.
- tzury 15y ago
  millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status could not phrase this better
jmspring 15y ago
Pile on Arrington? Techcrunch is an interesting read now and then and certainly draws people that love what they do and others that don't. Lots of trolls anytime Steve Gilmour or MG Siegler post, it is the nature of the Web. This very much seems like a spat between Arriana Huffington and Michael Arrington, both of which have very public forums to address their sides. At the end of the day, if the paperwork signed says that TC was to have "editorial independence" from Huffington Post, then AOL needs to address that. If it doesn't, then the parties involved need to figure out how to salve the assorted egos. The CrunchFund thing? I get the impression that Armstrong and Arrington get along and Armstrong/AOL see the Crunchfund as a way of getting AOL (event at a distance) more involved in developing new companies. Does it make things more complicated? Probably. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
RickHull 15y ago
The page loaded completely empty for me, even after enabling every prompted script domain via NoScript. Curious, I checked the source, and it looks like the page essentially consists of script elements within an unclosed head tag: http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb sigh...
- cheald 15y ago
  That would likely be PHP throwing a fatal error and bailing out.
kr1shna 15y ago
It's the law of cycles. Techcrunch has had a good run, but in the internet era, a fast paced blog can't last forever. See the downhill progress of Engadget and Gizmodo. Time to make room for a new king of the hill.
pollster 15y ago
At first this came off to me as link bait and Arrington being a drama queen. But, surely these types of disagreements go on within every company and blogging about them is the ultimate in transparency as well as a chance for others to learn from TechCrunch. It may be reality blogging, but it's the reality of an extremely successful organization and leader, and that's something we can probably all learn from. poll - Do you think TechCrunch should have editorial independence? http://www.wepolls.com/p/2301501 http://www.wepolls.com/p/2301501
zbruhnke 15y ago
I think Arrington for got Option 3: AOL says F* You Arrington, does what they want since they bought tech crunch and they own it. The past shareholders have no ability to recall the buyout almost a year later and say nevermind we want our company back. Reality is Arrington sold, Arrington started a new fund. People think this new fund will interfere with Arrington's "Editorial Independence" therefore they claim he will be gone. At the end of the day it just does not matter that much, If Mike is who he thinks he is he could just go start another blog tomorrow and gain all the traction he wanted. His non-compete (if applicable) is probably non-enforceable after the first twelve months anyhow. If he is not then he should just go back to his new fund and invest in some startups loudly (which is the Arrington fashion) which is probably what he will do best
mikeleeorg 15y ago
John Gruber wins for the best tl;dr I've seen of this drama yet: > "I Sold My Company (to a Bunch of Idiots) and Expected to Still Maintain Control Over It." http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch
movingahead 15y ago
Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to his credit, he has maintained a strict transparency about his posts. For people who are alleging what happens to those companies which are competitors, won't the same logic apply to Fred Wilson or Om Malik, both of whom are VCs as well as popular bloggers. I do think Arrington should not have named his fund CrunchFund. Techcrunch runs a database about companies and people involved in the tech industry called Crunchbase. This brings us to a different question. Michael earlier had a plan for a tablet called CrunchPad, which didn't materialize when he had a fall-out with his technical partner. Does the brand name belong to the company or to the founder ? No matter who owns the trademark and other legal stuff, I believe it should stay with the company.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  It's possible that Arrington is getting little support because --and I base this only on his online, public persona-- he isn't a very likable guy.
- petervandijck 15y ago
  I'm surprised as well. Editorial independence is a real issue (not like the conflict of interest red herring), and we're not defending it for the most influential tech news blog?
  - movingahead 15y ago
    Agree. I am amazed at how most people just bash TechCrunch and leave the matter. No matter one likes it or not, they are the biggest tech blog and so very influential. TC's well-being is in the interest of the startup community.
mapgrep 15y ago
He already has editorial independence. What he wants is independence to run a venture fund. It's a crucial distinction, and one AOL's lawyers can surely make -- convincingly -- in court.
pcj 15y ago
Leaving editorial Independence aside, if Arrington was fired from TC and AOL, how is he able to write this post? Sounds all like a sham!
ebaysucks 15y ago
The solution is obvious: CrunchFund buys back a majority stake in TC from AOL for $20 million. AOL now owns TC indirectly, as Mike is the middle man.
Angostura 15y ago
AOL have moved to ensure that TechCrunch maintains its editorial independence... from a venture fund.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
"Trolls trolling trolls."
jeremymims 15y ago
Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps). - The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones they've invested in directly). Federated Media (2 years after an investment by New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?sq=federated%20media&st=Search&scp=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?s... BrightCove article that was published without due diligence and later corrected eight days later: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=bright%20cove&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=... GroupMe article where they mention that the company has taken $12 million but neglect to mention they were part of the round through Betaworks: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-messaging-start-up-groupme/?pagemode=print http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-... These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of other competing tech companies? Funnily enough, the best resource to follow these connections is Crunchbase: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes - The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy. Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors? - The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the Boston Red Sox. I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is about. My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a matter of course.
j_baker 15y ago
If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure AOL just told Arrington they didn't want him to have any significant role at TechCrunch going forward.
marcamillion 15y ago
Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence. It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page, and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after an acquisition. I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others. I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over these episodes. Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords "Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember which one). Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something brave about doing it in public.
zxcvvcxz 15y ago
Does anyone else think that techcrunch has a lot of drama for no good reason? I used to like reading it a while ago, now I just don't care for it.

215 points by pathik 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Zakuzaa 15y ago

I'd like to see mass exodus of writers and creating their own brand new site. Sounds familiar.

jmjerlecki 15y ago
I could see MG Siegler joining Thisismynext/The Verge.
- randall 15y ago
  And Bankoff (the guy who orchestrated the Weblogs, Inc. merger, and subsequent editorial strategy of the NewAOL which Armstrong is executing on today) would probably be more than happy to welcome them into the fold.
gscott 15y ago
They could be funded by Crunchfund

idlewords 15y ago

It's called "selling out" for a reason. If Michael Arrington is genuinely surprised that an acquirer is not holding to the sweet, sweet promises it made him at acquisition time, then he has no business being a tech journalist. The correct time for this kind of acute episode of journalistic integrity was before cashing the AOL check, not after. He was under no pressure to relinquish his independence. More likely he sees an opportunity to head for the exit with at least one suitcase still full of money.

Slimy 15y ago

I wonder how much of this whole brouhaha was staged.

toddmorey 15y ago
I was just going to post the same comment! 1) Quietly and privately agree on his role, then 2) stage a public melodrama for traffic, and finally 3) bring the drama to a resolution favorable to both TC and AOL. That's worth at least 4 or 5 record-traffic articles if played right. (I'm usually not this cynical, but then again, this is TechCrunch.)

hollerith 15y ago

This makes me suspect that Arrington is one of those people who every now and then digs in his heels and has a complete inability to see things from his opponent's point of view. For example, here he does not even bother to address what seems to me to be the central issue (journalistic conflict of interest).

jsavimbi 15y ago
It's obvious that he has certain limits to his personal competence like us all and is unable to either seek or comprehend third-party advice once he's past the point of no return. This is not the first time that we've seen his personal drama detailed in public and it really detracts from the brand. Off the top of my head I'll cite the tablet project, Airbnb debacle, Calacanis just name a few. If Aol is listening they need to put distance between themselves and Arrington, not get closer.
nknight 15y ago
You seem to think this is AOL enforcing journalistic standards. Try reading the whole saga again. The blowtorch that ignited this wasn't CrunchFund itself (which AOL backed), but AOL CEO Tim Armstrong (NOT Arrington) disclaiming journalistic integrity: “TechCrunch is a different property and they have different standards… we have a traditional understanding of journalism with the exception of TechCrunch.” This is a disaster of AOL's making, not Arrington's.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Where is he disclaiming journalistic integrity? Seems to me like he is making a hands-off comment with regards to TechCrunch, as in - we wouldn't allow an editor of a regular property to invest in companies they write about, but TechCrunch has different rules.
  - nknight 15y ago
    I don't understand. How is saying "TechCrunch doesn't have to have journalistic integrity" not disclaiming journalistic integrity for TC?

ojbyrne 15y ago

So presumably this includes the possibility of writing 100% positive articles on CrunchFund funded companies and 100% negative articles on their competitors....

jobu 15y ago
NBC is owned by GE, that doesn't restrict NBC Nightly News from reporting on the weapons made by GE that were used by and against Libyan rebels. I understand the levels of separation are a lot deeper with GE/NBC, but as long as full disclosure is given about his relationship with Crunchfund companies I don't see a huge ethical problem. That said, I really don't see why Arrington would want to try wearing both hats. It brings a huge magnifying glass onto the bias in his articles, and possibly the articles of all those at TechCrunch.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Is TechCrunch promising to always give full disclosure? The earlier articles this morning seemed to be very upset that anyone would think they need to do something like this, something so "old media" like.
- recampbell 15y ago
  A more apt comparison is a GE board member working as a NBC reporter.
- ojbyrne 15y ago
  I bet NBC Nightly News has a fairly rigorous and well-defined code of ethics.
  - anamax 15y ago
    Yup, but "code of ethics" means: A set of "rules" that sounds good to outsiders but lets insiders do what they want. Most "code of ethics" make it easy for insiders to call outsiders "unethical" for doing things that insiders do. For example, "journalists" are allowed to make up quotes. Outsiders aren't.

aresant 15y ago

Arrington & Armstrong created CrunchFund as partners and the controversy is purely Arrington's doing. This latest breathlessly pissed off post demonstrates Arrington can still post anything he likes to TechCrunch. So why not write a clear and concise explanation on TC to begin with? I'd submit that Arrington is ready to leave TC to focus on investing, and there's no better way to do that than with a massive page-view heavy controversy.

petervandijck 15y ago
Sure, Arrington doesn't care if he burns his bridges, he's ready to move on and he knows what a post like this will buy him (respect and enemies). That doesn't mean the controversy is empty though. It's still ball-sy and more than 99.99% of people in the business would do and yes, for that he gets respect points. Like it or not.

rationalbeats 15y ago

So instead of writing this message in an email to the powers at be at AOL, he writes a blog post about it, which is certain to escalate the situation? Why?

jrockway 15y ago
Page views. This is TechCrunch we're talking about. Nobody actually wants to read it, so they have to resort to tactics like this in order to get anyone to look at their site.
nknight 15y ago
This was already being played out in public. It's a PR battle, and Arrington thrives in massive public fights, while AOL has always been the big clumsy giant that can't find its ass with both hands. I think a better question is why wouldn't he want it to escalate?
zackbelow 15y ago
I am sure he has written and said many things to AOL at this point. He is grumpy, rich and thinks AOL crossed major boundary lines that were part of their original agreement. At this point, he knows that he can either: a) Get AOL to bow down to his rants (Charlie Sheen anyone?) and "reimplement" those boundaries. Basically he wants to stick it to the man that gave him 30 million to prove hes bigger than the man. b) buy TC back from AOL, probably for half as much as they paid. Inside I am sure he is thinkin this is awesome cuz either way dude walks away with 8 bajillion dollars, synonymous popularity in tech world and every chance in the world to start another uber blog/mediacompany/empire. Plus, he can pull a Steve Jobs even if he does quit, and resurrect the company at any time he wants to after AOL buries it and Ariana becomes Co-Editor..
jkaljundi 15y ago
To have an open discussion? To influence people? To have some fun? To be brutally honest?

mikek 15y ago

Am I the only one who sides with Arrington? I feel that TechCrunch has taken editorial ethics seriously so far, and see no reason why this shouldn't continue.

brown9-2 15y ago
I don't read TC regularly, but do they disclose when an article is written by someone who has a financial stake in the company being written about?
- brackin 15y ago
  I side with Arrington too, AOL didn't stick to their promise and Huff Post is hardly editorial brilliance. They don't pay most of their staff and a lot of their content is just SEO spam. I mean all of these editors of Engadget left, keeping quiet but many hinted about the editorial aspects inside of AOL as one of the reasons they'd resigned.
  - brackin 15y ago
    By the way, yes they do. Every post Arrington will say he or someone at TC is an investor. Not that it's too regular.
    - tatsuke95 15y ago
      Are you sure about this? "Every post" is a strong statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Arrington is an implicit investor in YC, through the Angel Fund, and Techcrunch gave the YC startups a ton of coverage lately. The few articles that I read in the early going made no reference to this fact.
      - brackin 15y ago
        YC startups have been given lots of press for years. You may be right, I don't know the specifics of the terms but YC startups have always had a lot of coverage because they're YC startups. I've seen far more bias from the mainstream press tech reporters towards certain startups. All these journalists seem to be hired by a number of startups. Seems like some are just reporting to help their career.

chugger 15y ago

wait for ThisIsMyNextCrunch to launch in the next few months.

kr1shna 15y ago
I've previously suggested that MG and some of the crew should go join the upcoming Verge

anonfortc 15y ago

This is so much fun. It seems that we now have a fight between two divas -- Arrington and Huffington. It is one of those fights where you do not care who wins, you just hope for lots of bloodshed. It's like a Raiders Broncos game! So Mike Arrington makes a stand for editorial independence. Now for those of you new to this whole discussion, we should note that Mike editorial independence Arrington started this whole brouhaha by the obvious and blatant conflicts of interest he got himself in. Namely he was investing in companies he covers and now is starting a fund that would seem to be dedicated to investing in companies he covers. After the ny times called him out on the conflict, it was obvious that TechCrunch's claim of it being an independent news source would be utterly laughable. And that probably prompted Ariana to make her move. And now Arrington is making a bold stand by resigning in the name of "editorial independence". Probably he did not have a choice but to resign, not because of editorial independence from Ariana Huffington, but because of editorial independence from his own conflicts of interest. But by making this stand he very cleverly tried to divert the attention from his own fuckups and poison the waters for whoever Ariana tries to appoint to lead TechCrunch. Now I would like to say I am not on Ariana's side. I wanted to point out the blatant hypocracy of Arringrton, but Ariana's career is so full of double dealing and questionable behavior that I doubt TechCrunch would be better with her. Like I said, it is the Raiders playing the Broncos, and I am not choosing sides just enjoying the violence.

RockyMcNuts 15y ago
ha! Arrington: I'm going to start raising a fund, with the Crunch name and telling investors they'll get privileged access to TechCrunch and covered companies. Ariana: Pffth! GTFO! Arrington: Editorial independence! Help, help, I'm being repressed! This from the guy who's started thumbing his nose at AOL the day they bought his company. Even started a feud with Engadget accusing them of some underhanded BS that ended when AOL had Arrington's back and most of the Engadget team quit. AOL keeps outdoing itself in its search for the most annoying new media personalities to bless with a cashout and one-way trip to oblivion (Calacanis, Huffington, Harrington). And they keep laughing all the way to the bank.
petervandijck 15y ago
The conflict of interest is a total red herring. Arrington has always disclosed much more than most. If you think it's not, you don't know how the (tech) news industry works.

suking 15y ago

drama queens

scottkrager 15y ago

Who didn't see this coming 11 months ago? Many founders seem to regret the sale of their baby...Arrington is no different. Acquisitions are tough when talented people are involved and it's no longer their ship to run.

jneal 15y ago

First off, I should say one thing. I am not a fan of Arrington. In fact, I really dislike him and think he's an over-arrogant POS. However, I do enjoy his site and prefer its raw ethical nature. They promised editorial independence and this should remain true. I have to side with Arrington. That being said, I don't believe pushing this issue publicly like this is going to help one bit. I'd bet that AOL sees this post and considers it insubordination leaving them with no choices but let him go (if that's even possible?) One thing I hate about the "big guys" in news is that it is the news "they" want you to hear, and I hate that. If Arrington leaves TechCrunch, and the ethics behind TechCrunch leave with him, I will no longer visit the site.

brown9-2 15y ago
Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as "ethical"? Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - unless TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of interest.
- wmf 15y ago
  There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say, MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of independent writers who don't talk to each other).
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.
15y ago

rdouble 15y ago

I briefly worked for AOL on the Winamp team right after they acquired both Winamp and Time Warner. The story that an AOL deal ends up in a total cluster fuck is 10 years old. With any knowledge of recent history, it is boggling anyone thought this acquisition would work and I don't believe for a second Arrington is writing in earnest.

jackson71 15y ago
SHOUTcast's recent week-long on and off outage and subsequent crippling of their APIs is evidence enough of how seriously (or lack thereof) they take some of their properties.
jsavimbi 15y ago
The life of any app is measured in years, the best of which is when you sell to a "larger organization that can use its widespread exposure to further grow the community" while it dies a couple of years later. Just look at Yahoo!'s portfolio. Arrington wanting his baby back is a bunch of BS. Reddit would be an anomaly, I'm happy to say, although it still has a ways to grow out of its niche.
Apocryphon 15y ago
Oh, to live in a world where MySpace was acquired by AOL instead of Rupert Murdoch.

mbreese 15y ago

Why do I have the feeling that we (the public) aren't the real target for these posts? This all has the feel of a giant power-play within AOL that we are only one side of. I know that this is TechCrunch, but do we really have to be exposed to the drama that is normally reserved for office politics? Or is this all just an attempt to give Arrington, et al. cover for when this whole thing just blows up? Or, it could all be for the pageviews... has it been a slow news month?

nikcub 15y ago
I would become a lot more suspicious of this being a pageview drive if Arriana replied using huffingtonpost.com
- brackin 15y ago
  It's obviously not a pageview drive... This is making AOL look really bad, so if it's a pageview drive AOL is stupid. Especially because of the post MG wrote last night which sounded very honest and blunt.
  - teej 15y ago
    AOL has been making money hand-over-fist while being the brunt of insults for 10 years now - this wouldn't be the first time.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - altuzar 15y ago
      If he wanted independence, he sold because...?
    - nl 15y ago
      A (falling) ~10% profit margin and -8.40% year-on-year revenue growth isn't really making money "hand-over-fist" http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AOL+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AOL+Key+Statistics

RyanMcGreal 15y ago

I'm reminded of the link posted last week [1] arguing that founders make better CEOs. TechCrunch was a valuable asset for AOL to pick up precisely because of the way it was organized and managed. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jobss-law-why-founders-make-the-best-leaders/244439/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/steve-jo...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

freejoe76 15y ago

Glad more people are getting introduced to the term editorial independence.

credo 15y ago

Arrington frames it as a matter of "editorial independence" and doesn't talk about ethics and conflict of interests. However, I don't see how anyone else (and least of all, the owners of TechCrunch) can ignore those two matters - and the resultant impact on the credibility of TechCrunch. Ultimately, Arrington made a conscious decision to sell TechCrunch to AOL. He made another conscious decision to become the founder of CrunchFund. The two-option ultimatum in his post seems like simple posturing. It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor (who also blogs - the Fred Wilson model).

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
petervandijck 15y ago
Or, he's standing up for his team. Saying the truth is always hard.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  It's not his team. it's AOL's team. he sold it. this point however is pretty fascinating "Sell TechCrunch back to the original shareholders". I wonder if he'd be willing to put a number on that sale?
tapp 15y ago
> It seems like he is ready to finally leave TechCrunch, but doesn't want to frame it as a simple matter of leaving TechCrunch to become a full-time investor I wonder about this. Even if you accept the premise that his priority is now his fund, it seems like Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow?
- danbmil99 15y ago
  > Mike's formally leaving TechCrunch could have a nontrivial impact on "CrunchFund's" deal flow? No, he's a brand unto himself and he knows it, and is cashing in on that in an admirable way (from a game-theory perspective at least)

flocial 15y ago

This whole saga is nothing short of confusing. I guess the owners of TC lost sight of the picture when they saw a nice financial exit. They've covered AOL long enough to know how bad things might get. What's really interesting is how AOL managed stay alive all these years and even acquire properties with life in them.

nikcub 15y ago
> how AOL managed stay alive selling overpriced dialup to old and ignorant people (not a joke)

adnam 15y ago

Get stuffed already.

Uchikoma 15y ago

I know I will be voted down, but this reminds me of PGs comments on the AirBbB threads.

jonknee 15y ago

Maybe it's just me, but millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status makes for little sympathy. I don't work at AOL and don't need to take part in their office politics.

tzury 15y ago
millionaires fighting other millionaires for WordPress admin status could not phrase this better

jmspring 15y ago

Pile on Arrington? Techcrunch is an interesting read now and then and certainly draws people that love what they do and others that don't. Lots of trolls anytime Steve Gilmour or MG Siegler post, it is the nature of the Web. This very much seems like a spat between Arriana Huffington and Michael Arrington, both of which have very public forums to address their sides. At the end of the day, if the paperwork signed says that TC was to have "editorial independence" from Huffington Post, then AOL needs to address that. If it doesn't, then the parties involved need to figure out how to salve the assorted egos. The CrunchFund thing? I get the impression that Armstrong and Arrington get along and Armstrong/AOL see the Crunchfund as a way of getting AOL (event at a distance) more involved in developing new companies. Does it make things more complicated? Probably. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

RickHull 15y ago

The page loaded completely empty for me, even after enabling every prompted script domain via NoScript. Curious, I checked the source, and it looks like the page essentially consists of script elements within an unclosed head tag: http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb http://pastebin.com/JkVyL9tb sigh...

cheald 15y ago
That would likely be PHP throwing a fatal error and bailing out.

kr1shna 15y ago

It's the law of cycles. Techcrunch has had a good run, but in the internet era, a fast paced blog can't last forever. See the downhill progress of Engadget and Gizmodo. Time to make room for a new king of the hill.

pollster 15y ago

At first this came off to me as link bait and Arrington being a drama queen. But, surely these types of disagreements go on within every company and blogging about them is the ultimate in transparency as well as a chance for others to learn from TechCrunch. It may be reality blogging, but it's the reality of an extremely successful organization and leader, and that's something we can probably all learn from. poll - Do you think TechCrunch should have editorial independence? http://www.wepolls.com/p/2301501 http://www.wepolls.com/p/2301501

zbruhnke 15y ago

I think Arrington for got Option 3: AOL says F* You Arrington, does what they want since they bought tech crunch and they own it. The past shareholders have no ability to recall the buyout almost a year later and say nevermind we want our company back. Reality is Arrington sold, Arrington started a new fund. People think this new fund will interfere with Arrington's "Editorial Independence" therefore they claim he will be gone. At the end of the day it just does not matter that much, If Mike is who he thinks he is he could just go start another blog tomorrow and gain all the traction he wanted. His non-compete (if applicable) is probably non-enforceable after the first twelve months anyhow. If he is not then he should just go back to his new fund and invest in some startups loudly (which is the Arrington fashion) which is probably what he will do best

mikeleeorg 15y ago

John Gruber wins for the best tl;dr I've seen of this drama yet: > "I Sold My Company (to a Bunch of Idiots) and Expected to Still Maintain Control Over It." http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/06/aol-techcrunch

movingahead 15y ago

Most of the editors at Engadget, another tech blog owned by AOL have left publicly citing AOL's editorial policy. I am surprised by the lack of support that Hacker News community is showing to Arrington. Even in the post announcing the sale to AOL, there was clear stress about the editorial independence of TC. Arrington always has had a weird investment policy, but to his credit, he has maintained a strict transparency about his posts. For people who are alleging what happens to those companies which are competitors, won't the same logic apply to Fred Wilson or Om Malik, both of whom are VCs as well as popular bloggers. I do think Arrington should not have named his fund CrunchFund. Techcrunch runs a database about companies and people involved in the tech industry called Crunchbase. This brings us to a different question. Michael earlier had a plan for a tablet called CrunchPad, which didn't materialize when he had a fall-out with his technical partner. Does the brand name belong to the company or to the founder ? No matter who owns the trademark and other legal stuff, I believe it should stay with the company.

tatsuke95 15y ago
It's possible that Arrington is getting little support because --and I base this only on his online, public persona-- he isn't a very likable guy.
petervandijck 15y ago
I'm surprised as well. Editorial independence is a real issue (not like the conflict of interest red herring), and we're not defending it for the most influential tech news blog?
- movingahead 15y ago
  Agree. I am amazed at how most people just bash TechCrunch and leave the matter. No matter one likes it or not, they are the biggest tech blog and so very influential. TC's well-being is in the interest of the startup community.

mapgrep 15y ago

He already has editorial independence. What he wants is independence to run a venture fund. It's a crucial distinction, and one AOL's lawyers can surely make -- convincingly -- in court.

pcj 15y ago

Leaving editorial Independence aside, if Arrington was fired from TC and AOL, how is he able to write this post? Sounds all like a sham!

ebaysucks 15y ago

The solution is obvious: CrunchFund buys back a majority stake in TC from AOL for $20 million. AOL now owns TC indirectly, as Mike is the middle man.

Angostura 15y ago

AOL have moved to ensure that TechCrunch maintains its editorial independence... from a venture fund.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

"Trolls trolling trolls."

jeremymims 15y ago

Most people don't realize this, but The New York Times is a big corporation like AOL (with sometimes similarish market caps). - The New York Times has invested in technology companies like AdKeeper, Automattic, Ongo, Brightcove, Federated Media, and funds like Betaworks (which is in dozens of startups in all kinds of fields). Have their reporters ever received tips and information about upcoming companies and tech launches because of these connections? Do they get written about more often than your average startup? You better believe it. If you look through their coverage of these companies they imperfectly acknowledge their involvement (even the ones they've invested in directly). Federated Media (2 years after an investment by New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?sq=federated%20media&st=Search&scp=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/technology/30online.html?s... BrightCove article that was published without due diligence and later corrected eight days later: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=bright%20cove&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/business/23corner.html?sq=... GroupMe article where they mention that the company has taken $12 million but neglect to mention they were part of the round through Betaworks: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-messaging-start-up-groupme/?pagemode=print http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/skype-plans-to-buy-... These were just three examples I pulled quickly (I sincerely apologize for using these companies as examples since this has nothing to do with them). Do your own search for any New York Times invested or Betaworks company on nytimes.com and you'll see what I mean. Does this change their coverage of other competing tech companies? Funnily enough, the best resource to follow these connections is Crunchbase: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes http://www.crunchbase.com/company/newyorktimes - The New York Times has their own internal division that develops software products and services that other publishing companies and media companies buy. Does this change their coverage on competing technologies and competitors? - The New York Times owns a diverse set of businesses in competition with Aol's current strategy including about.com. They also own a chunk of the Boston Red Sox. I'm going to be blunt. I don't think the New York Times is shady enough to let this change their coverage despite their obvious conflicts of interest (in the BrightCove article in their 8 day later correction stresses that "The New York Times Company owns a small stake of less than five percent in Brightcove". I doubt Michael Arrington owns 5% of any startup he's written about). And since TechCrunch has had (if anything) a policy of more transparency and disclosure than the Times has had, I can't for the life of me see what all the ruckus is about. My disclosure: I am tangentially connected to most of these companies by investment, friendship, or business relationships and I think the world of them. OwnLocal also works with all kinds of newspapers and publishers as a matter of course.

j_baker 15y ago

If Aol cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure AOL just told Arrington they didn't want him to have any significant role at TechCrunch going forward.

marcamillion 15y ago

Like Arrington/TC or not, it is hard to deny that since the AOL acquisition that TC has gone above and beyond to make sure they assert their independence. It's very interesting to see the internal politics spill out on the main page, and it's fascinating to see the struggle between the competing entities after an acquisition. I think many/most other media acquisitions would have squashed this - imagine any of News Corp media outlets EVER writing/reporting a negative story about News Corp, and the same would go for NBC and MSNBC of GE, and all the others. I must say, although it can be construed as just grandstanding and attention grabbing, Mike and the TC team have gotten a few extra points from me over these episodes. Sure, they may have overdone it at times, but it couldn't have been easy for Arrington to stand by and watch his reporters str8 up tell his new overlords "Fuck Off" (literally - one of TC's bloggers tweeted that, can't remember which one). Glad to see them publicly wrestle with their independence. There is something brave about doing it in public.

zxcvvcxz 15y ago

Does anyone else think that techcrunch has a lot of drama for no good reason? I used to like reading it a while ago, now I just don't care for it.