I agree with the overall argument and sentiment of Dan's article. My ideal blog about technology startups would be about Silicon Valley as it is. It would be

I agree with the overall argument and sentiment of Dan's article. My ideal blog about technology startups would be about Silicon Valley as it is. It would be hard to run this blog. I'm not even sure it could be profitable, because most interesting information about what's happening in Silicon Valley is not written about. It's shared directly between people working here, and there's very little reason for those conversations to go public. You see the same problems with journalists covering Washington and national politics. The journalists are willing to be used by politicians because it furthers their careers. It's so tempting to just give in. It's certainly more profitable. On the other hand, if you take TechCrunch for what it is, I don't think it's unethical per se. You just have to know how to read between the lines. Dan's article would be better if he didn't confuse angel and VC investment, though. Michael Arrington is certainly an angel investor, and he was one long before he started CrunchFund. He's probably an investor in CrunchFund's first fund, but as a General Partner he's acting as a VC, not an angel investor. The key distinction being whether he's investing his own money (an angel investor) or LPs' money (a VC).