26 ms·
That was my first reaction too but when you think about it there is an internal logic here. Arrington was the overall editor so he had to go because he could s
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
That was my first reaction too but when you think about it there is an internal logic here. Arrington was the overall editor so he had to go because he could skew coverage. Siegler is staying on but only covering Apple so CrunchFund can't influence his writing because Apple is way too big for them to invest in.
I mean, it's definitely right on the line but I'm not sure it crosses it.
- mcantelon 15y agoYeah, but the thing is Arrington sold, agreed to spend 2 years with AOL, then did something that is obviously a conflict of interest to get out of his obligation. As a startup would I want to make an agreement with someone like that?
- edtechre 15y agoGood point. If Arrington and co are that blatantly corrupt out in the open, who'd want anything to do with them when the doors are closed?
- wavephorm 15y agoMaybe AOL didn't make them sign any agreements, but the way they've bailed on Techcrunch, caused a shitstorm, and started up this fund and competing tech blog all feels really slimey. I can't imagine why any startup would want to accept money or work with them.