3 ms·

I tend to agree. Arrington asserts that "This is a good thing for readers", but doesn't back that up with anything. In the comments someone made a point very

by alex_c 17y ago

I tend to agree. Arrington asserts that "This is a good thing for readers", but doesn't back that up with anything. In the comments someone made a point very similar to yours, but Arrington's response isn't particularly coherent: counterpoint – they write the news on their own blog with lots of videos and other information for press to digest and then write their own stories. it works. and it’s not like the bias in their blog posts isn’t there in the pre-briefing anyway.

drusenko 17y ago
That would work well for the press, but poorly for startups. Reason being: press is like raising money -- you have to get a lot of excitement to get the best coverage. Putting the news out on your blog fails on multiple points: - No deadlines, so there's no urgency for the press to pick up your story (vs one that's more urgent). No urgency in practice means your story will not be written about. - Cat's out of the bag. It's much less exciting to re-print news than to break it, and news that's exciting gets first priority. - This makes it old news. Similar to the last point -- why cover it if it's already been covered?