Pando goes to, and is escorted out of, Y Combinator demo day

This title is clickbait. They were politely and apologetically asked to leave, since they snuck in and didn't have a press pass.

As to why they didn't get a press pass, who knows. But they've been extremely negative toward YC companies in the past. YC isn't running a White House press conference; they're running an event with the unabashed goal of helping their companies succeed. You wouldn't invite your bitter ex to your wedding.

As for why TC writes so much about YC companies: I know a bunch of YC companies that didn't get a TC write-up, and I know some that had negative writeups. Like it or not for Pando (or anyone else), it's mutually exclusive: the launch of a YC company is news, and launching on TC is a Silicon Valley rite of passage. TechCrunch wants YC startups, YC startups want TechCrunch.

(On a more personal note, being a founder is really fucking hard. It's the hardest thing I've ever done. YC is the only organization in the valley I've ever felt had my back 100%, and truly had my best interests in heart. VCs and press may complain about Demo Day, but who cares: YC makes decisions based on what's best for its companies, not the press or VCs. I can't thank YC enough for everything they did to protect, help and nurture us as an early-stage company.)

(serious question not trying to demean Pando): does Pando have enough readership to warrant being included in the press section of an event with competitive press entry? I've enjoyed a lot of the Pando articles I've read, but I don't see them around very much and I pay a lot of attention to the tech press. Plus, it's pay-walled for the most part right?

Even if they don't have the readership to support this it isn't a criticism of it as a journalistic endeavor or business, but I'm just wondering if this warrants such a complaint.

Im in no way to related to YC, Techcrunch or Pando. But, I think in their power and willingness, YC was very much justified in escorting Pando out of the event. Would you let someone into a private event or party when they come without an invitation and you dont want them there? They were very apologetic and nice in escorting them politely and journalist mentions that. Why were white men and women randomly thrown in the article as if to highlight them when there is neither a need nor it adds any information to the story ? This is plain clickbait. When it is my event, Im free to invite whoever I want.

I hate that he makes it sound like he had some responsibility to be there as if by invitation. I'm sure everyone wants to report on this stuff, but reporting has never worked that way. Reporters are often excluded for any and every reason from conferences, for much the same reason that people don't invite everyone to a party.

Really sickening how they throw in a jibe about the lack of women, just so they can sound self righteous and distract from the immorality[0] of them trespassing on YCombinator's event.

[0] Not that it's always immoral for journalists to trespass. Clearly they play a special role in society and sometimes this might involve going to places they weren't invited. However to me this crosses the line because there is no public interest angle. Everything in the article could have been read about in (or extrapolated from) articles written by the invited journalists.

Tech journalism at its lowest. 1. Whining over something meaningless to get page views. 2. Calling TechCrunch journalism...

YC is not a public entity; they don't owe you a seat. Just because you don't get one doesn't mean they're in the wrong.

Besides, if this is the standard of investigative journalism ("waaah, I couldn't get in! let's cast aspersions!"), I think that any group would be in the right to reject the author on journalistic merit.

I'm glad someone has finally went out of their way to point this out. Props to Pando Daily.

I too have noticed that TechCrunch will publish anything with YC's name on it - even from the outside, you can tell that the two parties have a really curious direct relationship. Despite this odd arrangement, TechCrunch writers still do not disclose it on their individual profiles (even though they may go as far as disclosing who they are dating and what loose connection that personal relationship might have to their excuse of "reporting"). By having a strong hold on TC, Ycombinator can distort the public opinion around it even if it has wronged someone.

Journalism should be free-thinking and not just morph into whatever opinion YC likes best and that suits them. I wonder how many journalists Ycombinator has strong armed into publishing stuff they like by denying them access to demo day or "exclusives" on their companies.

It also frustrates me because I have friends who aren't in YC but constantly grinding it out and working on their startups - how come they can't easily get on TC as well? How many real, actual stories have we missed out on just because a new YC company is entering the scene and feels compelled to occupy the very self-entitled YC showcase that is TechCrunch?

You'll do your snooping work to find this stuff out, because you can. Sadly, others can't do this to HN. Because HN software becomes increasingly opaque by the day. Users are forced to take you at your word, all the while comment score points are hidden, users are rankbanned without warning, users are slowbanned, etc.

Nothing proves their point better than admins killing this story on HN.