Can Erick Schonfeld Keep the Techrunch Swagger Alive? | Hacker News Reader

Can Erick Schonfeld Keep the Techrunch Swagger Alive?

betabeat.com

16 pointsbionichn12 comments

The swagger is not why people followed TechCrunch. It was actually a toxic byproduct. Hopefully the new regime can stick to reporting and minimize the grief.

Wrong. Even Fred Wilson mentioned about the swagger. Try going to uncrunched.com and feel the difference.

I did click their links for the swagger somewhat. Soon they'll realize that's what gets pageviews and go back to their old model. Right now, without the personality, they're a dry rag and wide open to competition. They effectively lost their USP when that main guy left. What makes them special anymore?

w/o reading the posts I welcome the change of TechCrunch with Schonfeld alone now. He got rid of chief-whiner MG Siegler by promoting him to the #1 Apple commentator (a diplomatic masterpiece) and gave Arrington some extra trouble by putting Siegler in this Mini-Crunch-Fund.

Not that Schonfeld will be the better blogger, it's about getting new life into TechCrunch.

I hope Erick Schonfeld does not try to re-create the drama that was part of Arrington's forte. Instead, this is a chance for him to build a respected, journalistic property.. a sort of nytimes for the tech space. I hope he does the latter.

I'm not sure that's possible with Techcrunch - I know Mashable has invested in journalists to try and deliver deeper content, but Techcrunch isn't set up to operate that way, and the fact that every writer is pretty much autonomous means that it's a nightmare to try and even correct inaccuracies...

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/real-journalism-venturebeat...

http://uncrunched.com/2011/09/28/venturebeat-needs-to-put-on...

I do not think he can.

Does the editor in chief need to be the center of attention? Maybe he can just hire great talent.

I guess the real question is how much less information/scoops they will have with Mike and MG gone.

The editor in chief doesn't need to be the center of attention, I agree. BUT in TechCrunch's case he was. Mike had a swagger about him and how he wrote - which I think helped define how the others wrote. I think that's a big part of what made TC what TC is. So in this case, I think it does matter. Can Erick change how the ship is run and still be successful? Sure, but it's going to be hard.

BTW, I wasn't clear in my original post. My post was in reference to how both articles were written, not about the content. Swagger vs no swagger.

Sometimes the EIC does need to be the center of attention. It gives the publication a voice. Arrington did it online and in events, the Wired and Tech Review EICs are mostly at the center on the event side, with far less writing/reporting in print and online.

Quick, no googling! Who's the Editor in Chief of the New York Times? The Wall Street Journal?

I have no idea myself and I'd bet most readers of those papers don't.

We're not talking about the same thing. The NYT and WSJ are not tech pubs. They generally cover hard news, and in the case of the WSJ, provide a mouthpiece for the conservative political establishment in the United States. These newspapers are not about the EIC or publisher -- all editorials are deliberately unsigned and voice comes through in the reporting style and individual columnists/contributors (Krugman, Friedman, Mossberg, Pogue, etc.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com