4 ms·

Oh... My... God.... Lyons is a fucking god. As a journalist in the valley, I can just say that the first paragraph he's written here hits the nail right on the

Oh... My... God.... Lyons is a fucking god. As a journalist in the valley, I can just say that the first paragraph he's written here hits the nail right on the fucking head. ---"It’s tough being a journalist, especially if you’re covering technology and living in Silicon Valley, because it seems as if everyone around you is getting fabulously rich while you’re stuck in a job that will never, ever make you wealthy. What’s worse is that all these people who are getting rich don’t seem to be any brighter than you are and in fact many of them don’t seem very bright at all. So of course you get jealous. And then you start thinking maybe you could find a way to cash in on this gold rush. But how do you make gobs of money when your only marketable skill involves writing blog posts?" I feel this way all the time! But there's a distinct difference between acting on these feelings and just feeling them. Arrington would be just fine and above reproach, these days, if he'd keep his fucking mouth shut now that he is ludicrously compromised and un-objective. If he'd quite being a "journalist" he'd not look like such a douche... Perhaps this is why I haven't jumped the fence yet... I don't think I could give up the journalism. It just gets in your blood. And once it's in, the thought of compromising yourself is sickening. Unless you're Arrington.

glyph 15y ago
But that's the whole point of the article: the whole value of the CrunchFund (and its ilk) is that Arrington (and his ilk) will be a douche on your behalf. If it were just the money, it wouldn't be worth it for the companies they invest in: the amounts are too small. It's an alternative compensation scheme for a PR flack who masquerades as a journalist. There's no ethical way to run the fund, because it would be worthless if it were ethical.
- VonGuard 15y ago
  Yah, obviously that's the value he's adding. I think it's a zero sum game, however. Shilling isn't going to help a crappy product out in the long term, only the short term. And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? Do influencers lose influence when they lose objectivity? What the fuck is an influencer, anyway? If a journalist is ever an influencer, he or she is doing it wrong... Buh, I could go on a giant rant here about how journalism is dead, or at least, extremely sick... How am I going to write about people places and events when those people places and events are writing about themselves? Fortunately, it would seem there is still a consumer for quality, deep journalism on specific topics. I don't even know what I'm really saying here, anymore... Just that Lyons really hit a nerve. It's super frustrating to be in an interview with someone who makes 10X what you make, and is completely unaware of what's really going on in their industry.... All too common an event.
  - tucson 15y ago
    It's not a zero sum game: money is invested. Money goes from A to B. Media coverage helps convince investors, and customers, or users. One of the most efficient media is advertising disguised as journalism. Hence the legislation on "infomercials" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial#Criticism_and_legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial#Criticism_and_legal...).
  - shrikant 15y ago
    > And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? I believe the crux of the problem is that 'influential bloggers' want all the credibility of journalists ("we're writing and reporting on things!"), without any of the responsibility ("we're just blogging our opinions!"). This is what leads to situations like below: Then there's the post in December where MG [...] thought he'd uncovered some kind of huge conspiracy when he accused Google's Android chief, Andy Rubin, of deleting a tweet. A few days later Siegler had to recant (sans apology, of course) when it turned out that, um, nope, Rubin hadn’t done that. Of course there’s a simple way to avoid bonehead moves like this — you do the reporting before you publish the accusation, not after.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      There already are bloggers with the credibility of journalists (and more) who assume all of the responsibility (and more). We all know this and read these people all day every day. Dan Lyons is not one of them (SCO), and neither is MG, but MG (and more) is just telling us he is neither a good VC nor journalist, but his (and his friends') wallet would like you to think he was. tl;dr: MG is innovating the huckster niche.
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    > And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? There's nothing "grey" about it: it's a straightforward conflict of interest. Unethical practices that were mostly stamped out of more mature industries with professional codes of conduct and industry best practices are rife in the tech startup sector. That's as true of collusive, interested tech journalists as it is of startups collecting sensitive personal information without disclosing it or providing a clear opt-out (or preferably opt-in) provision.
rayhano 15y ago
Can this post be kept in a special place at the top of Hacker News forever. Just so that people understand that the world isn't fair and to concentrate on their cool hacking.
redcircle 15y ago
It is self limiting to look at it in terms of earning money. Clearly happiness is life's goal --- not money (nor prestige, nor power). If you are smarter, as Lyons says he is, then it should be possible to transcend the environment. I'm not talking Christian-like self abasement. If you try hard enough, you can figure out ascension points to higher planes of understanding and flourishing and self growth. In the process, you might get rich as a by-product, but by then the money should be irrelevant.
- VonGuard 15y ago
  Good advice. But it is indeed, still frustrating. I'm not sure some fo the people here quite understand just how little journalists make... I mean, yeah I did not get into it for the money, but the Valley feels like a lottery sometimes, and journalists do not get to buy tickets. Of course, I'm super happy being a journalist. But you gotta admit, it's frustrating to watch all this money fly around while yer struggling to pay rent.
funkah 15y ago
"It’s tough being a journalist, especially if you’re covering technology and living in Silicon Valley, because it seems as if everyone around you is getting fabulously rich while you’re stuck in a job that will never, ever make you wealthy." Um, forgive me if I don't sympathize? My job will probably never make me wealthy either, but that's not why I do it, and it's sure as shit not a reason anyone ever went into journalism.

glyph 15y ago

But that's the whole point of the article: the whole value of the CrunchFund (and its ilk) is that Arrington (and his ilk) will be a douche on your behalf. If it were just the money, it wouldn't be worth it for the companies they invest in: the amounts are too small. It's an alternative compensation scheme for a PR flack who masquerades as a journalist. There's no ethical way to run the fund, because it would be worthless if it were ethical.

VonGuard 15y ago
Yah, obviously that's the value he's adding. I think it's a zero sum game, however. Shilling isn't going to help a crappy product out in the long term, only the short term. And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? Do influencers lose influence when they lose objectivity? What the fuck is an influencer, anyway? If a journalist is ever an influencer, he or she is doing it wrong... Buh, I could go on a giant rant here about how journalism is dead, or at least, extremely sick... How am I going to write about people places and events when those people places and events are writing about themselves? Fortunately, it would seem there is still a consumer for quality, deep journalism on specific topics. I don't even know what I'm really saying here, anymore... Just that Lyons really hit a nerve. It's super frustrating to be in an interview with someone who makes 10X what you make, and is completely unaware of what's really going on in their industry.... All too common an event.
- tucson 15y ago
  It's not a zero sum game: money is invested. Money goes from A to B. Media coverage helps convince investors, and customers, or users. One of the most efficient media is advertising disguised as journalism. Hence the legislation on "infomercials" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial#Criticism_and_legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infomercial#Criticism_and_legal...).
- shrikant 15y ago
  > And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? I believe the crux of the problem is that 'influential bloggers' want all the credibility of journalists ("we're writing and reporting on things!"), without any of the responsibility ("we're just blogging our opinions!"). This is what leads to situations like below: Then there's the post in December where MG [...] thought he'd uncovered some kind of huge conspiracy when he accused Google's Android chief, Andy Rubin, of deleting a tweet. A few days later Siegler had to recant (sans apology, of course) when it turned out that, um, nope, Rubin hadn’t done that. Of course there’s a simple way to avoid bonehead moves like this — you do the reporting before you publish the accusation, not after.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    There already are bloggers with the credibility of journalists (and more) who assume all of the responsibility (and more). We all know this and read these people all day every day. Dan Lyons is not one of them (SCO), and neither is MG, but MG (and more) is just telling us he is neither a good VC nor journalist, but his (and his friends') wallet would like you to think he was. tl;dr: MG is innovating the huckster niche.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  > And it brings up all manner of ethical grey areas: is blogging journalism? There's nothing "grey" about it: it's a straightforward conflict of interest. Unethical practices that were mostly stamped out of more mature industries with professional codes of conduct and industry best practices are rife in the tech startup sector. That's as true of collusive, interested tech journalists as it is of startups collecting sensitive personal information without disclosing it or providing a clear opt-out (or preferably opt-in) provision.

rayhano 15y ago

Can this post be kept in a special place at the top of Hacker News forever. Just so that people understand that the world isn't fair and to concentrate on their cool hacking.

redcircle 15y ago

It is self limiting to look at it in terms of earning money. Clearly happiness is life's goal --- not money (nor prestige, nor power). If you are smarter, as Lyons says he is, then it should be possible to transcend the environment. I'm not talking Christian-like self abasement. If you try hard enough, you can figure out ascension points to higher planes of understanding and flourishing and self growth. In the process, you might get rich as a by-product, but by then the money should be irrelevant.

VonGuard 15y ago
Good advice. But it is indeed, still frustrating. I'm not sure some fo the people here quite understand just how little journalists make... I mean, yeah I did not get into it for the money, but the Valley feels like a lottery sometimes, and journalists do not get to buy tickets. Of course, I'm super happy being a journalist. But you gotta admit, it's frustrating to watch all this money fly around while yer struggling to pay rent.

funkah 15y ago

"It’s tough being a journalist, especially if you’re covering technology and living in Silicon Valley, because it seems as if everyone around you is getting fabulously rich while you’re stuck in a job that will never, ever make you wealthy." Um, forgive me if I don't sympathize? My job will probably never make me wealthy either, but that's not why I do it, and it's sure as shit not a reason anyone ever went into journalism.