Arrington now officially out
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The reason TC gets the scoops is in part because they strong-arm startups by not writing about them if they don't provide an exclusive. Now, granted they get a lot of scoops about major companies which is quite impressive - but honestly, that's not very insightful, just juicy bits of info that we like to read about.
Most startups that TC 'scoops' tend to be "social mobile local" startups that generate buzz - there are a lot of successful startups in decidedly non-sexy areas that are quite profitable, which never get covered because they don't get the same page views that say, Color's $40 million investment does.
I think Arrington & TC actively hurt the startup community by providing a narrow world-view. Sites like GigaOM & Ars Technica provide thoughtful, indepth analysis of the technology scene , while TechCrunch continues to post opinionated, linkbait pieces.
Am I the only one who feels that TechCrunch is the startup world's Jersey Shore? Just because you get a lot of views doesn't mean that your content is valuable or useful in any way.
I look at Techcrunch like this. TechCrunch is TMZ for our industry.
On one end there is the phenomenal up to the minute, you can't find this anywhere else, everyone will be talking about it nonstop for a week, they scooped everybody stuff. (i.e. TMZ scooped the entire news industry on Michael Jackson's death and TechCrunch routinely scoops other tech blogs on stuff like Google trying to buy path and Color's last funding round)
And then there is the tech/startup industry drama and celebrity gossip.
If you look at as such you won't be so surprised and offended when you read it.
I don't think it's ever truly been taken seriously by hackers, except in a pragmatic sense.
This was even published before the TC drama that came out today.
Keep in mind everyone always talks about how TC doesn't cover start ups and only highlight the big players. If you actually look through the stats of what they post about, it isn't the case. It is just their cheezy/TMZ-ish articles get the most attention and stay in memory for longer.
I don't know if it's good or bad or if that generality can be made.
It sure can be fun to read at times.
I liked TechCrunch when it primarily carried the underdog and captured the optimism and energy of the valley. Whenever Michael Arrington used it as a soapbox to air dirty laundry, it made me uncomfortable.
To the future leaders of TechCrunch: Less ValleyWag, more GigaOM.
Mike Arrington may or may not have received some information from someone who may or may not have been telling the truth, which he then chose to describe in a blog post as 'sordid'. That still doesn't make idle gossip and speculation appropriate.
Other than idle curiosity, isn't news of this kind important for investors? If you were to invest $10M in her next startup, wouldn't you want to know why she left the previous one, heck, isn't the first questions one gets asked in an interview "Why are you leaving your previous company"? Do you counter those by saying it's nobody's business?
It is natural for people to be curious, which is why gossip exists, and why there's a market for publishing it. However, our tendency to gossip is something we should resist and overcome.
There's a large distinction between Fake and Jobs (or Schmidt, or Bartz). The former was an executive of a small private company. The latter was the CEO of one of the largest public companies on earth, owned in part by many thousands of investors, all of whom have a financial interest in his health. Executives do have to explain things to their investors, and in a public company, the investors and the public are the same.
TechCrunch and similar publications have long tried to treat Silicon Valley and high-tech entrepreneurship in general as 'Hollywood for geeks', and the founders of startups as the equivalent to entertainment figures. But entrepreneurs aren't politicians or movie stars, no matter how much the tech press (and certain entrepreneurs!) might like it to be so, and subjecting their private lives to the same amount of scrutiny is repugnant.
You blame TechCrunch (and its ilk) for pumping the "Hollywood for geeks" culture, which is of course true. But this, as any Hollywood star knows, is a two way street. Many of the geeks thrive on their stardom, with thousands of people following their Twitter feeds and blogs. This in turn leads to investment in their companies (and appearances and book deals, etc.) I'm not saying that all geeks (or Fake) employ such Kardeshian-like tactics to get attention, but some do. TechCrunch is a channel for these people to get and focus attention (although Arrington's style does sometime get crude). It's the same dynamic as movie/TV stars and late night shows, if you're in that business you have to do the rounds.
Now, in the case of Fake, I don't know why leaving the company is her "private life" but most people here seem to think so. Arrington in his blunt way hints that there is "juicy" bits to this. If that is the case, I have no interest. My question was not to pry into Fake's dating life per se. I am much more interested in understanding the thought patterns (or the downvoting patterns) on HN than this issue.
Or, are you saying you'd like to know just because you want to? Do you feel you have a right to know? Is the world being unfair to you?
Although yes, generally one gets married before starting business ventures with one's partner. But that's still a very, very common setup.
As I understand it, Arrington wanted to head a new VC while at the same continuing to serve as head of TechCrunch, the major journalistic outlet in the startup field. AOL raised questions about his journalistic integrity, and made him choose between being a VC and being a journalist, and he gave them an ultimatum, they called his bluff, and he chose VC.
Did I miss a detail or nuance that makes this anything other than AOL holding up traditional journalistic virtues?
Arianna who's responsible for AOL's other news outlets then had her staff tell the media that Arrington was fired and would have no role at Techcrunch. This seems to have been done without consulting the AOL executive committee who backed Arrington.
Techcrunch when they were acquired by AOL were promised full editorial independence, hence they were AOL's only news blog outlet not to be controlled by Arianna. Arianna then attempted to make a power grab by publicly announcing that Techcrunch fell under her control and she was going to appoint the new editor.
Arrington complained that this grossly violated the editorial independence promised by AOL, and that Techcrunch should be able to appoint it's own editor. Many of TC's writers are unhappy with this violation and feel without independence they won't be able to retain the tone and spirit of TC (which is often very abrasive).
At least one of their writers (Paul Carr) has publicly stated that he would resign unless Arrington got to appoint the next editor . Even in this article note how the Techcrunch writer puts "Deciding" in quotation marks to indicate that Arrington was pushed.
The final line of the press release "TechCrunch will be expanding its editorial leadership in the coming months." seems to imply that Arianna has won the power battle within AOL. The line saying Erick Schonfeld has been named editor is highly misleading, Erick's been co-editor of TC since 2007, it adds nothing new to the situation.
Arianna Huffington To Lead Newly Formed The Huffington Post Media Group Which Will Integrate All Huffington Post and AOL Content, Including News, Tech, Women, Local, Multicultural, Entertainment, Video, Community, and More
It seems like her role as Editor In Chief of all AOL content was part of the deal she made, since this occurred after the Techcruch deal was done Arrington likely had little recourse at that point. (Huffpo was acquired after TC, any promises made to TC about editorial independence was prior to the new editorial leadership). "Promises" made when big companies buy little ones are always pretty worthless once the rubber really hits the road.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/aol-to-restructure-media-gr...
Of-course none of that will matter if the TC writers decide to leave an create a rival blog. It comes down to if AOL can now pay them enough to stay.
I think that current events have pretty much dispelled that notion.
Note non-competes as the result of acquisitions are pretty much iron clad even in CA.
But for tech journalists ? - if you stop them working for a tech news site they can't get another job. It's not as if they can become sports journalists or war correspondents, a large part of their value is in their specialism and contacts in that specialism. Hence a non-compete would probably be considered an unfair restraint of trade.
I think that only applies if the employee in question had ownership/investment in the acquired company. If they did not, then the non-compete is not valid (at least in CA, I have no idea about WA).
Arrington wanted to both:
1. run an influential tech publication covering early stage companies
2. run a fund that invests in early stage companies and have compensation tied to the performance of that fund (if not his own money invested as well.)
Those two are generally considered mutually exclusive as far as a media organization is concerned. If someone at AOL didn't see that conflict when adding him to their fund effort, they're dumb. If Mike didn't see that issue, he's dumb too or just thinks everyone else is dumb.
Clearly AOL at least has some minimum threshold of integrity they're trying to maintain. I don't think there's much blame you can assign to Huffington on this unless you can find another major editor who would allow that kind of a conflict.
Two people that liked each other and wanted to work together professionally could probably have worked it out, but there was no way either of these two would have managed it.
Perhaps he'll become like the other side of pg and write cogent essays about the marketing and PR side of startups while funding a small stable of them.
Two critical points:
1) Crunchfund is funded by AOL. 2) Techcrunch is owned by AOL.
Yes Arrington being in-charge of both was a conflict of interest, but the fact is that even after Arrington's resignation/firing, AOL is still in charge of both.
This makes me somewhat skeptical about how much autonomy Erick will be given in the long run. Unless they mean the expanded editorial leadership would ultimately answer to him.
But what do you expect from Arianna and AOL?
He'll have a pretty personal personal blog - something like AVC - and I look forward to him bringing his expertise and style to investing. Good times.
It's not like we all didn't see this happening 11 months ago.
Huh? Sorry but anyone with any integrity would have and should have kicked Arrington out. If I were an AOL exec I would have kicked him out. There is no way they can allow Techcrunch to become the promotional arm for his new investment fund.
So don't blame Ariana or AOL for this.
Journalism needs guys like this who cause waves, it's what seperates mediocre journalism from real talent. And Arrington certainly had a way of making enemies.
I'm hoping he starts his own site soon.
No, it's not. Good investigation and objective reporting is what the industry needs. Link-baiting and sensationalism are generally bad for constructive communication.
He leaks intel to his former staffers at TC to cover. He writes occasionally as an unpaid blogger. And he runs Crunchfund without any conflicts.
I am also not sure if TC will be the same without Michael. I personally don't think so, but we'll see.
well, on second thought, maybe not...