3 ms·
What Exactly Am I Doing Here At Uncrunched?
- trotsky 15y agoIt takes an impressive amount of hubris to define your lead quality of "TRANSPARENCY" as disclosing some of your conflicts of interest.
- greyman 15y agoFrom the opposite perspective, he is not less transparent comparing to mainstream media. They require their writers to not have direct monetary investment in the things they write about, but other than that, there are more intricate connections and resulting biases. As I see it, Mike is still more transparent that his competition, so it is not hubris he showed.
- _delirium 15y agoWell, this post certainly contained the substance:bluster ratio I've come to expect from classic TechCrunch.
- alnayyir 15y agoFlagged. Reason: WHO CARES? This post detracts from this site. It contributes nothing.
- joshes 15y ago>I know a lot of you don’t understand why I can’t disclose all conflicts of interest. The answer is that if I did, not that many people would want to talk to me in the direct, honest way that I prefer. As a reader you must remain aware of the inherent bias in everything you read, and form your own opinions accordingly. So at first he admits that he cannot disclose all conflicts of interest, then states that, as readers, his audience must remain aware of his inherent bias. How are we to remain aware of the nature of these biases if all conflicts are not disclosed? And, in turn, how are we to trust anything that he writes when it is known that he has a) biases and conflicts and that b) he will not disclose all of the? I understand that everyone has biases and conflicts of interest, that they are impossible to avoid and that it is highly impractical to disclose each and every one. But it seems intriguing, to me, to caution us to "be aware" while also telling us that he will not give us the information require for full awareness.
- baddox 15y agoHe's promising to disclose all financial conflicts of interest, which I feel are the only ones that are vital to disclosing. The idea of disclosing all other conflicts isn't even well-defined. Presumably he'll only ever write about topics he finds interesting, for one reason or another. Sure, he might be friends with the founders of Company X, but if he's genuinely interested in the company he's writing about, does it really matter why he's interested (if it's not because he invested in them)?
- mdda 15y ago"What Exactly Am I Doing Here At {Hacker News}?". I know that building a business requires getting the word out. And that understanding the media channel is an important part of that. But when the media channel personnel themselves become the story, things are getting waaay too meta.
- sgentle 15y agoHow much of Techcrunch was being in the right place at the right time and how much was Mike Arrington? I've always wondered, and now we get to find out.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- codeslush 15y agoI can answer this with a healthy dose of confidence: It was Mike Arrington. Passion is difficult to argue against. Why on earth he chose Uncrunched is beyond me, but I'll read along anyway.
- presty 15y agoI'm curious. How can he start uncrunched? Was AOL that dumb by not putting a non-compete clause on him?
- duck 15y agoMaybe that is why he is wearing an unpaid blogger t-shirt...
- benologist 15y agoHopefully he stays focused on startups and away from the fluff pieces and pandering that pretty much defined TechCrunch at the end.