Case in point: the Google Voice/Apple/AT&T fiasco. We broke the news that Google had submitted their application six weeks ago and subsequently had it rejected. Until then, everyone was under the impression that Google was still "working on it".
That's not so hard when you don't observe the same standards for verifying a story. The impression is that TC simply publishes early and often - statistically, some of it turns out true.
To me the it's gotten to the point where the cons outweigh the pros. I no longer trust what is written on TC.
That said, TechCrunch has still chosen to publish many sloppy or sensational articles - essentially thumbing their nose at journalistic integrity. I have trouble viewing TC in a positive light after reading through these:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
@jkincaid most of these HN comments aren't ignorant/ridiculous bashing but are piecing together some constructive feedback for TC:
Be Truthful
Be Accurate
Be Accountable
You could garner more readership and respect...
When advertising revenues started falling, I suspect.
I also don't know if breaking news is as important to readers as it is to journalists, for a number of reasons; Notably, I have a certain number of sites that I peruse per day, and I rely on them for the majority of my daily intake. I don't seek out news, and WSJ and NYT aren't on my reading list, while TC is. I frankly wouldn't know the difference if TC broke something an hour (or even a day) earlier than the next guy.
Really though, I think that TC has enough market/mindshare that they should focus much less on breaking sensationalism, and more on reliably reporting news as accurately as they can in the traditionally plain-English fashion that made them famous.