4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOr, he's standing up for his team. Saying the truth is always hard.
- jfoutz 15y agoIt'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)
- flarg 15y agoI second that; Arrington has always been a player.