3 ms·
We Are Better Than This
- joejohnson 15y agoHow could these "journalists" be impartial when they are financially involved with the companies they report on?
- gyardley 15y agoWell, they could try and intentionally correct their coverage in the opposite direction. I'm reminded of the elementary school teachers in my small town, who had to teach and grade their own children at one point because they were the only teacher of that grade in town. Like those teachers, the journalists won't get it perfect, and some won't even bother trying, but it is possible to try and avoid favoritism. That said, 'journalists' in the tech space have never been particularly impartial - many establish meaningful relationships with entrepreneurs in the tech industry, and those people tend quite naturally to get more and more favorable coverage. This is one of the points Mike is making - Dave is being treated more harshly than a generic CEO in the same situation because he's disliked personally by certain journalists. I don't know if it's true in this case, but it's certainly plausible. Honestly, it's almost preferable to have a financially-entangled tech press, because at least then the conflicts are (usually) publicly disclosed. It's far easier than figuring out who goes drinking with whom in their spare time.
- Codhisattva 15y agoIn my opinion, that's typically called a shill.
- kylemaxwell 15y agoYawn. More Valley melodrama. Let's all agree that everybody's a jerk sometimes and move on.
- mistercow 15y ago> Dan Lyons suggests that my defending Path on this issue means, because we’re an investor, that we’re a paid apologist (and much worse). Seems to me that Lyons was suggesting that Arrington was a paid apologist on the basis of the less-than-full complement of scruples and moral fiber Arrington has exhibited in the past.
- PanosJee 15y agoThey are not worth even this comment.