4 ms·

It's interesting to me today how so many people view "business" as some sort of monolithic political entity, just like teacher's unions or the NRA. So if a pol

It's interesting to me today how so many people view "business" as some sort of monolithic political entity, just like teacher's unions or the NRA. So if a politician is upset about the economy (and who isn't?) he meets with "business leaders", much the same way if he were upset about proposed rifle regulations he might meet with the NRA, or just like if one country doesn't like the way another is acting they meet with the leader of that country. Likewise, if a CNN reporter is upset (or smells a story) about minorities in the startup scene, she ambushes a leader of the startup community with questions about racism. It shows a complete lack of understanding the thing you are talking about. While you might make a case for institutionalized racism when it comes to funding, there's no way in hell an internet user is going to know the race, gender, religion, nationality, or sexual preference of anybody who runs a webapp. Traction on the net is for the most part stereotype-free. Plus from what I hear funding doesn't have the impact on startups that it had say five years ago. The dynamics have changed. You'd have to be an idiot not to fund a startup that had traction because of the race of the founders, and if you're not using team and traction as primary metrics, good luck with your VC business. The entrepreneurial world is not a centralized, monolithic thing that somehow you can talk or meet with any small number of people and understand and/or control. It's a very poor mental model to use and promote. I just find it weird that somehow reporters, or even politicians, expect there to be a person they could go to in order to talk about the pantheon of entrepreneurship. It doesn't work that way by definition. It's not like there's a startup club where they hand out all these freebies and you're not invited. To slant the coverage that way, even unintentionally and subtly, is really whacked. It implies that economic problems are simply dependent on meeting the leaders of various groups and gaining consensus -- that economics is really just politics by another name. I understand why politicians do this -- they have a faulty mental model of everybody being in some sort of political group to be negotiated with -- but reporters need to up their game. This kind of reporting screws over the viewer big time.

ThomPete 15y ago
What an enlighting and thoughtful comment. My only problem with it is that those who need to understand this, dont.
grammaton 15y ago
The lack of understanding on the part of reporters goes far beyond treating business as a monolithic entity. Just look at what passes for "science" reporting these days. Sadly, journalism is becoming it's own specialized profession, with the implied lack of study of fields outside one's own - which, ironically, undermines the very substance of what journalism is supposed to be all about.
rdtsc 15y ago
> he meets with "business leaders" US Chamber of Commerce and various other lobbying organizations. A politician knows where his support and money is coming from. "Business leaders" is just a nice way of saying lobbyists. > The entrepreneurial world is not a centralized, monolithic thing ... Is that hurting it though when it comes to promoting its interests in Washington? Google, Oracle, Microsoft, all probably have their lobbyists. Not really saying to quickly start sending money to K street, just something to be aware of. > It's not like there's a startup club where they hand out all these freebies and you're not invited. There is the converse to that they way they see it perhaps, if there isn't a large lobbying organization behind all this, it must not all be that important. Those that have the resource can launch PR wars again them and take advantage of the fragmentation. > slant the coverage that way, even unintentionally and subtly, is really whacked. At best they are ignorant of that, at worst, they know and try to spin it to play to someone's interest.
mattmanser 15y ago
I disagree with your pov. I'm putting aside the trap this journalist sprung and focusing on your contention that going after certain people in not representative. You seem to be totally ignoring how humans inherently work on a social level. Why do people move to the bay? To be part of the community. And if that community is racist, it presents extra barriers. Not that I think it is in any way. There are people who hold the keys to success or failure in terms of funding as you mentioned, but there are people, like the Mikes, pg, Steve Blank, Fred Wilson, Eric Reis, Joel Spolsky, etc. who hold an enormous influence over the community just from what they write. There are also many face-to-face communities in the bay area that are equally influential. There are also key schools where a lot of startups seem to emanate from in the US, so by extension those schools are also influential. You can't pretend these 'power' centres don't exist in the startup world and if you were to try and identify why this demographic anomaly exists, who would you ask? Them. The reason it's the same in business is because generally business owners end up networking with other business owners, like startups network with other startups, because they want feedback/help/discussion from their peers. That's what a community is and that's why politicians and reporters will go talk to these people, precisely because they know what they're talking about. In fact it is/was Mike Arrington's job to tap into the thoughts/hopes/fears of the startup community.
- jriddycuz 15y ago
  Of course there are influential parties in the Valley, but that still doesn't make it one thing. What the OC seems to have reacted against was the reification[1] of the industry into a single thing. Of course you can influence an industry, but the key to understanding what that means lies in the the "fluid" part of "influence." The whole thing is a dynamic, swirling mass of people and groups constantly interacting with and reacting to one another. An industry isn't really a thing so much as it is a convenient way for us to refer (somewhat nebulously) to a collection of companies that operate in certain fields. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
  - ahoyhere 15y ago
    I agree with you. As I get older & more persnickety, it's got to the point where every time I hear somebody refer to "the community" or "the industry" as if it's a coherent entity with goals and plans and capable of taking action (or even having a stance), I cringe. What that really says to me is "I live in a fantasy land, run! run away! fleeee!" In any "community" or industry ("community" in quotes here because people abuse that word so much worse, calling swathes of people with no connection whatsoever a "community" if they share some superficial trait), there will be a small handful of people who DO lead opinions and DO do things and DO make plans. But then the rest are a swirling mass with no particular inlets or outlets.
jriddycuz 15y ago
Excellent point. My dad, who was a journalist for 30 years, always complained about this assumption among his colleagues. Journalists are taught to go talk to the people in charge, and the idea that there is some group in charge of an industry is just an unspoken--and often unthought--assumption about how business works. Obviously it's ludicrous, but it's a side effect of being taught to look for the "big picture" to get the big story.

ThomPete 15y ago

What an enlighting and thoughtful comment. My only problem with it is that those who need to understand this, dont.

grammaton 15y ago

The lack of understanding on the part of reporters goes far beyond treating business as a monolithic entity. Just look at what passes for "science" reporting these days. Sadly, journalism is becoming it's own specialized profession, with the implied lack of study of fields outside one's own - which, ironically, undermines the very substance of what journalism is supposed to be all about.

rdtsc 15y ago

> he meets with "business leaders" US Chamber of Commerce and various other lobbying organizations. A politician knows where his support and money is coming from. "Business leaders" is just a nice way of saying lobbyists. > The entrepreneurial world is not a centralized, monolithic thing ... Is that hurting it though when it comes to promoting its interests in Washington? Google, Oracle, Microsoft, all probably have their lobbyists. Not really saying to quickly start sending money to K street, just something to be aware of. > It's not like there's a startup club where they hand out all these freebies and you're not invited. There is the converse to that they way they see it perhaps, if there isn't a large lobbying organization behind all this, it must not all be that important. Those that have the resource can launch PR wars again them and take advantage of the fragmentation. > slant the coverage that way, even unintentionally and subtly, is really whacked. At best they are ignorant of that, at worst, they know and try to spin it to play to someone's interest.

mattmanser 15y ago

I disagree with your pov. I'm putting aside the trap this journalist sprung and focusing on your contention that going after certain people in not representative. You seem to be totally ignoring how humans inherently work on a social level. Why do people move to the bay? To be part of the community. And if that community is racist, it presents extra barriers. Not that I think it is in any way. There are people who hold the keys to success or failure in terms of funding as you mentioned, but there are people, like the Mikes, pg, Steve Blank, Fred Wilson, Eric Reis, Joel Spolsky, etc. who hold an enormous influence over the community just from what they write. There are also many face-to-face communities in the bay area that are equally influential. There are also key schools where a lot of startups seem to emanate from in the US, so by extension those schools are also influential. You can't pretend these 'power' centres don't exist in the startup world and if you were to try and identify why this demographic anomaly exists, who would you ask? Them. The reason it's the same in business is because generally business owners end up networking with other business owners, like startups network with other startups, because they want feedback/help/discussion from their peers. That's what a community is and that's why politicians and reporters will go talk to these people, precisely because they know what they're talking about. In fact it is/was Mike Arrington's job to tap into the thoughts/hopes/fears of the startup community.

jriddycuz 15y ago
Of course there are influential parties in the Valley, but that still doesn't make it one thing. What the OC seems to have reacted against was the reification[1] of the industry into a single thing. Of course you can influence an industry, but the key to understanding what that means lies in the the "fluid" part of "influence." The whole thing is a dynamic, swirling mass of people and groups constantly interacting with and reacting to one another. An industry isn't really a thing so much as it is a convenient way for us to refer (somewhat nebulously) to a collection of companies that operate in certain fields. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  I agree with you. As I get older & more persnickety, it's got to the point where every time I hear somebody refer to "the community" or "the industry" as if it's a coherent entity with goals and plans and capable of taking action (or even having a stance), I cringe. What that really says to me is "I live in a fantasy land, run! run away! fleeee!" In any "community" or industry ("community" in quotes here because people abuse that word so much worse, calling swathes of people with no connection whatsoever a "community" if they share some superficial trait), there will be a small handful of people who DO lead opinions and DO do things and DO make plans. But then the rest are a swirling mass with no particular inlets or outlets.

jriddycuz 15y ago

Excellent point. My dad, who was a journalist for 30 years, always complained about this assumption among his colleagues. Journalists are taught to go talk to the people in charge, and the idea that there is some group in charge of an industry is just an unspoken--and often unthought--assumption about how business works. Obviously it's ludicrous, but it's a side effect of being taught to look for the "big picture" to get the big story.