One of the dubious features of business journalism today is that articles tend to privilege the passive investor's point of view. Hence the emphasis on things

One of the dubious features of business journalism today is that articles tend to privilege the passive investor's point of view. Hence the emphasis on things like stock-market indices. And from an investor's point of view, a successful business is one whose stock is going up. A "hot" company that is losing money hand-over-fist but has a slim chance of Hitting It Big may or may not be a great place to work (depending on how Dilbertesque the management is) and may or may not be fulfilling the dreams of its founders, but the investor who has that company as one element of a large portfolio has every reason to be happy with it. And if you're a reporter or editor in the business/tech press and you're used to seeing things from the investor's point of view, why shouldn't you run with a story like the one Jason F. complains about? Why wait two years publish an article about a startup that is actually wildly profitable when you can fill the news hole right now with an article about a startup that might someday be wildly profitable? By contrast, a bootstrapped company that makes a tidy heap of profit for its two founders and three employees is booooring.