4 ms·

This is precisely the problem. My suspicion is that you should be flagging individual articles, not sources. That's no better than my grandfather ignoring any h

This is precisely the problem. My suspicion is that you should be flagging individual articles, not sources. That's no better than my grandfather ignoring any hard news reporting that comes from the New York Times because it has a "liberal bias". In the case of Twitter's internal documents, the reason you saw nothing of "real value" is precisely because Tech Crunch drew a line between releasing information that could be damaging to individuals and the company and things they could report that were relatively benign. They received much more information than they ended up publishing. Tech Crunch could have made more in ad dollars had they just published everything. They painstakingly satisfied an obligation to share information with the public and protect companies and individuals who they saw as having done nothing wrong. Whatever side they ended up on, they certainly tried to be transparent about it. As for the opinion part of reviewing startups and their software, I don't see any other way to go about it. Most small startup companies that are covered in Tech Crunch are based on a few facts (company name, founders, employees, location, backers) and then a review of their product or service. This is inherently an opinion. There just aren't that many "facts" about startups at the beginning. There are beliefs and perceptions. You can disagree with the opinion or analysis, but I don't see how you could avoid having one.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dantheman 17y ago
>> They painstakingly satisfied an obligation to share information with the public and protect companies and individuals who they saw as having done nothing wrong I'm not here to debate the ethics of releasing the documents; my question is, if there was nothing of interest (i.e. newsworthy) in the documents what was their obligation to post it? I mean if I dig through your trash and post your credit card bills that list what you buy at the grocery store even though it may be of general interest to see what someone purchases at the store, there is no obligation to post it since it isn't news.
orc 17y ago
I think that's an interesting point - should articles be flagged based on source? In most cases, the answer is no. But for a source that has proven time and again to produce content that makes you feel stupider after reading/viewing it, then I think a flag based on source is justifiable. I'm not saying whether Tech Crunch fits this category, but I'm sure we can all think of some sources that do.
anatoly 17y ago
According to your logic, we should put exactly the same trust in an article in NYTimes vs an article in the National Enquirer, only "flagging individual articles", that is, ignoring the well-deserved reputation of either source. That's not how people normally treat news sources or opinion sources. New York Times worked hard to establish the quality of its reporting. Tech Crunch worked hard to show its reader s that quality takes n-th place in its reporting to sensationalism, sleazy behavior, unsubstantiated rumors, heavily biased reporting, etc. etc. Both publications should enjoy the fruit of their labors. It's an unfunny joke to call Techcrunch "a paper of record" for anything. I'm not saying it's the National Enquirer of the startup world, but it's much closer to that than to being the New York Times of the startup world. Since Techchrunch now has zero credibility with me, and I think its articles should be treated as untrusted and biased by default, it's a waste of time for me to dig through a heap of garbage to find an occassionally honest and informative piece. Thus the strategy of flagging all Techcrunch submissions is a sound one; the only reason I don't is that I'm too lazy to remember to.
- jeremymims 17y ago
  I'll quote pg from a few months ago: "A fine, ringing denunciation. But let's consider performance. Do you learn more about startups from TechCrunch or the New York Times? I learn much more from TechCrunch. By the time the NYT gets around to writing about a startup, the news is usually pretty old. And they often get the story wrong, despite their supposedly greater professionalism, because they don't understand the domain as well as TC's writers do. If you think there's a better source of information about startups than TechCrunch, what is it?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500780 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500780
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dantheman 17y ago

>> They painstakingly satisfied an obligation to share information with the public and protect companies and individuals who they saw as having done nothing wrong I'm not here to debate the ethics of releasing the documents; my question is, if there was nothing of interest (i.e. newsworthy) in the documents what was their obligation to post it? I mean if I dig through your trash and post your credit card bills that list what you buy at the grocery store even though it may be of general interest to see what someone purchases at the store, there is no obligation to post it since it isn't news.

orc 17y ago

I think that's an interesting point - should articles be flagged based on source? In most cases, the answer is no. But for a source that has proven time and again to produce content that makes you feel stupider after reading/viewing it, then I think a flag based on source is justifiable. I'm not saying whether Tech Crunch fits this category, but I'm sure we can all think of some sources that do.

anatoly 17y ago

According to your logic, we should put exactly the same trust in an article in NYTimes vs an article in the National Enquirer, only "flagging individual articles", that is, ignoring the well-deserved reputation of either source. That's not how people normally treat news sources or opinion sources. New York Times worked hard to establish the quality of its reporting. Tech Crunch worked hard to show its reader s that quality takes n-th place in its reporting to sensationalism, sleazy behavior, unsubstantiated rumors, heavily biased reporting, etc. etc. Both publications should enjoy the fruit of their labors. It's an unfunny joke to call Techcrunch "a paper of record" for anything. I'm not saying it's the National Enquirer of the startup world, but it's much closer to that than to being the New York Times of the startup world. Since Techchrunch now has zero credibility with me, and I think its articles should be treated as untrusted and biased by default, it's a waste of time for me to dig through a heap of garbage to find an occassionally honest and informative piece. Thus the strategy of flagging all Techcrunch submissions is a sound one; the only reason I don't is that I'm too lazy to remember to.

jeremymims 17y ago
I'll quote pg from a few months ago: "A fine, ringing denunciation. But let's consider performance. Do you learn more about startups from TechCrunch or the New York Times? I learn much more from TechCrunch. By the time the NYT gets around to writing about a startup, the news is usually pretty old. And they often get the story wrong, despite their supposedly greater professionalism, because they don't understand the domain as well as TC's writers do. If you think there's a better source of information about startups than TechCrunch, what is it?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500780 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500780
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]