The article seems to suggest that the best way for TC to be relevant is to post shorter bits and long form articles written by entrepreneurs. I believe what's b

The article seems to suggest that the best way for TC to be relevant is to post shorter bits and long form articles written by entrepreneurs. I believe what's being described exists as "PandoDaily," which statistically speaking, you are probably not reading. Yes, it's true that most technology writers haven't gone out to try their hand at founding startups. Most founders also haven't tried their hand at technology journalism, and it's hard not to notice that guests posts on blogs from founders are usually vapid cheerleading of the form "there is an unaddressed market problem in field X and there is a lot of opportunity in solving X," where "X" is whatever field their startup is in. There are founders who are good writers, and people who write regularly will get better at it. But there are also a fair number of journalists, particularly in "new media" like, uh, websites, who have enough of a technical background to have some idea what they're talking about when they write. Is it better to have articles written by solid writers with unexceptional technology backgrounds, or articles written by people who've successfully gotten money but aren't necessarily good writers (and might still have unexceptional technology backgrounds)? Personally, I'd rather go for the former.