2 ms·
I'm surprised by the amount of cheering going on over this article. I found it in very poor taste, resorting to ad hominem attacks and slander. Even if it wer
by ericflo 15y ago
I'm surprised by the amount of cheering going on over this article. I found it in very poor taste, resorting to ad hominem attacks and slander. Even if it were in good taste, I don't agree with the general idea behind the post.
I don't understand this pent up hatred for Arrington, M.G. Siegler, and the other TechCrunch writers who, despite what people continually say, do genuinely seem to care about startups. Is this a case of wanting to knock successful people down a peg? Is it jealousy? What is it?
Sure, they are biased, but everyone is. At least they make it clear where their biases lie.
Please help me to understand this anger.
- justinlau 15y agoI'm surprised that you're surprised. Read the comments, it's pretty unambiguously spelled out here.
- bri3d 15y agoI think a lot of this anger stems from the way many tech bloggers write - a combination of a "fuck the haters" and a "told ya so" attitude. It's easy to breed hatred with thinly-veiled disdain for those who criticize you, and I think that's a good part of what's happening here. A lot of dislike for TechCrunch and affiliates also forms because these bloggers are part of a "good ol' boys" crowd in Silicon Valley. While the article casts this effect as one of VCs indirectly paying for stories and conflict of interest, I think personal ties are more important. Most of these tech bloggers spend a lot of time with a small group of VCs and founders-turned-investors, and it shows in what they choose to write about (and in who funds them when they go to found their own sites). For many, especially those outside this close network who are founding a startup or those who choose to eschew venture funding, it's frustrating to watch an already quite small echo chamber (tech startups in general) grow even smaller thru the lens of the VC-affiliate media.