3 ms·

This is what news organizations do though. Fox, CBS, NBC, if they receive documents they would publish them too. Why is TechCrunch different?

joezydeco 17y ago
Sigh. Didn't we just go through this with the lawsuit involving Apple and the Apple blogs? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/technology/12blog.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/technology/12blog.html?_r=... "[The ruling]... focused on the notion that the published information included trade secrets and was essentially stolen property."
- eli 17y ago
  That was a ruling that said Apple could track down the leaker. It didn't say the documents couldn't be published.
  - joezydeco 17y ago
    Oh, I see. I guess my interpretation of "stolen property" is different from yours. Sorry.
TrevorJ 17y ago
Yes, other news outlets may do this, but you don't get the smarmy "Heehee, look what we got our hands on, heeheehee." smug crap from the New york times. TC is trying to have the best of both worlds here and generate pageviews while still trying to appear like they are on the moral high ground.
- trickjarrett 17y ago
  Your issue is with their "hey look what we got" post and not with the fact that they are posting it?
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    That's my direct answer to the previous poster who used the "but other media outlets do this as well" argument. I'm not sure if I espouse TC posting the info, but I definitely think they are a lot more smug about it than mainstream media allows themselves to be.
eli 17y ago
Oh really? And exactly how do you know what documents they haven't published, eh? "Minimizing harm" is one of the basic precepts of journalism, and journalists withold documents all the time for a variety of very good reasons.
- trickjarrett 17y ago
  "Minimize harm" except for the public good. Watergate, WMDs in Iraq, etc. These are all worthy topics where the general good trump the protection of individuals. These are news. I have no disillusions that this is not real news. Twitter internal memos are not headline news. But how much of TechCrunch really is? Sure we get some headlines about upcoming features in Apple or Microsoft or Google. But in the big scale of things, it's never going to replace CNN, Reuters or BBC. Arrington wrote that they are not posting ones that are tabloid-esque in their nature to embarass. So he is attempting to manage the damage while still doing what he does - generate revenue by utilizing what information he is given. I don't know what files they withheld. My point is that, had the hacker sent this to a real news agency rather than TC, they would have published docs too. And I wager the discussion on the forums would be more centered around the content rather than the fact that TC dared publish papers. Lastly, my main thing is this: How is publishing this information different than beating the other sites to news about Apple's big announcement the next day? The information was acquired from an unauthorized source (as most leaks are.)
  - eli 17y ago
    My point is that, had the hacker sent this to a real news agency rather than TC, they would have published docs too. And my point is, I'm not so sure you're right. Unless there's actually something newsworthy contained in the documents, I think only the sleaziest news outlets would publish any details at all beyond perhaps the fact that there had been a break-in. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/business/who-me-print-a-leaked-document-a-proper-newspaper-wouldn-t-dream-of-that.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/business/who-me-print-a-le...
    - trickjarrett 17y ago

joezydeco 17y ago

Sigh. Didn't we just go through this with the lawsuit involving Apple and the Apple blogs? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/technology/12blog.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/technology/12blog.html?_r=... "[The ruling]... focused on the notion that the published information included trade secrets and was essentially stolen property."

eli 17y ago
That was a ruling that said Apple could track down the leaker. It didn't say the documents couldn't be published.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Oh, I see. I guess my interpretation of "stolen property" is different from yours. Sorry.

TrevorJ 17y ago

Yes, other news outlets may do this, but you don't get the smarmy "Heehee, look what we got our hands on, heeheehee." smug crap from the New york times. TC is trying to have the best of both worlds here and generate pageviews while still trying to appear like they are on the moral high ground.

trickjarrett 17y ago
Your issue is with their "hey look what we got" post and not with the fact that they are posting it?
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  That's my direct answer to the previous poster who used the "but other media outlets do this as well" argument. I'm not sure if I espouse TC posting the info, but I definitely think they are a lot more smug about it than mainstream media allows themselves to be.

eli 17y ago

Oh really? And exactly how do you know what documents they haven't published, eh? "Minimizing harm" is one of the basic precepts of journalism, and journalists withold documents all the time for a variety of very good reasons.

trickjarrett 17y ago
"Minimize harm" except for the public good. Watergate, WMDs in Iraq, etc. These are all worthy topics where the general good trump the protection of individuals. These are news. I have no disillusions that this is not real news. Twitter internal memos are not headline news. But how much of TechCrunch really is? Sure we get some headlines about upcoming features in Apple or Microsoft or Google. But in the big scale of things, it's never going to replace CNN, Reuters or BBC. Arrington wrote that they are not posting ones that are tabloid-esque in their nature to embarass. So he is attempting to manage the damage while still doing what he does - generate revenue by utilizing what information he is given. I don't know what files they withheld. My point is that, had the hacker sent this to a real news agency rather than TC, they would have published docs too. And I wager the discussion on the forums would be more centered around the content rather than the fact that TC dared publish papers. Lastly, my main thing is this: How is publishing this information different than beating the other sites to news about Apple's big announcement the next day? The information was acquired from an unauthorized source (as most leaks are.)
- eli 17y ago
  My point is that, had the hacker sent this to a real news agency rather than TC, they would have published docs too. And my point is, I'm not so sure you're right. Unless there's actually something newsworthy contained in the documents, I think only the sleaziest news outlets would publish any details at all beyond perhaps the fact that there had been a break-in. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/business/who-me-print-a-leaked-document-a-proper-newspaper-wouldn-t-dream-of-that.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/business/who-me-print-a-le...
  - trickjarrett 17y ago