3 ms·

Let's be clear: that's a tactic of yellow journalism. Good journalists don't string together unrelated facts unless they know there is a connection and can arti

Let's be clear: that's a tactic of yellow journalism. Good journalists don't string together unrelated facts unless they know there is a connection and can articulate it.

aragot 13y ago
Same for the title. It's unsubstantiated. There are reorgs, but nothing in the article confirms that G+ is dead.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The suspect <insert statement>, it is alleged. Nobody needs this explained to them. Similarly, I doubt anyone needs "walking dead" =|= "dead-dead" explained to them as a logical inequality. But if you do...here's an example for reference. Unless a firm has publicly announced that it is winding down, it is better to avoid labeling a fund as “walking dead.” Tagging a fund in this way has consequences. As in the case above, it can impact deal flow as companies seeking funding may think twice about approaching a firm believed to be in that category. It can hurt a firm’s prospects of being invited into syndicates and even potentially damage a firm’s existing syndicates. It can jeopardize relationships with current and prospective LPs if a forthcoming fund is even a notion among the firm’s GPs. Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, it can even damage the prospects of portfolio companies backed by these supposed walking dead VCs. https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethink-walking-dead-vc-firms/ https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethi... Google clearly has skin in the game here if this narrative means that they will lose engineering talent from G+. Techcrunch clearly has skin in the game here as a scoop is equal to eyeballs. Luckily, google has PRs that make 10x what tech-crunch writers make. So surely any needed corrections will make there way through the noize. That being said, it would be great to keep the comments clean of superflous tit-for-tat inuendo accusations when the undelying conflicts of interest are pretty apparent and not overly subtle. Countering inuendo with facts seems plenty enough to counter-spin any un-substantiated points. And the original point here stands well enough alone. Don;t disrefard the TC qualification about the office relocation. That is a fair point and stands by itself--no drama needed.
cookiecaper 13y ago
You must not think any news organization has good journalists in it anymore. The bias of all conventional news orgs is blaringly obvious to any observer who tries even a little bit to consider the other side of the story, and it's a rare when the journalist even goes this far and qualifies the innuendo. They usually just make a sensationalist intimation and allow the audience to draw the intended conclusion.

Let's be clear: that's a tactic of yellow journalism. Good journalists don't string together unrelated facts unless they know there is a connection and can articulate it.

aragot 13y ago

Same for the title. It's unsubstantiated. There are reorgs, but nothing in the article confirms that G+ is dead.

001sky 13y ago
The suspect <insert statement>, it is alleged. Nobody needs this explained to them. Similarly, I doubt anyone needs "walking dead" =|= "dead-dead" explained to them as a logical inequality. But if you do...here's an example for reference. Unless a firm has publicly announced that it is winding down, it is better to avoid labeling a fund as “walking dead.” Tagging a fund in this way has consequences. As in the case above, it can impact deal flow as companies seeking funding may think twice about approaching a firm believed to be in that category. It can hurt a firm’s prospects of being invited into syndicates and even potentially damage a firm’s existing syndicates. It can jeopardize relationships with current and prospective LPs if a forthcoming fund is even a notion among the firm’s GPs. Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, it can even damage the prospects of portfolio companies backed by these supposed walking dead VCs. https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethink-walking-dead-vc-firms/ https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethi... Google clearly has skin in the game here if this narrative means that they will lose engineering talent from G+. Techcrunch clearly has skin in the game here as a scoop is equal to eyeballs. Luckily, google has PRs that make 10x what tech-crunch writers make. So surely any needed corrections will make there way through the noize. That being said, it would be great to keep the comments clean of superflous tit-for-tat inuendo accusations when the undelying conflicts of interest are pretty apparent and not overly subtle. Countering inuendo with facts seems plenty enough to counter-spin any un-substantiated points. And the original point here stands well enough alone. Don;t disrefard the TC qualification about the office relocation. That is a fair point and stands by itself--no drama needed.

cookiecaper 13y ago

You must not think any news organization has good journalists in it anymore. The bias of all conventional news orgs is blaringly obvious to any observer who tries even a little bit to consider the other side of the story, and it's a rare when the journalist even goes this far and qualifies the innuendo. They usually just make a sensationalist intimation and allow the audience to draw the intended conclusion.