Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me. I also don't own a startup, so there's no conflict there. My personal beef is that TechCrunch is a 'serious journalistic entity' when they get documents leaked to them, but the second people start trying to hold them to the standard of real journalism suddenly it a blog. It's difficult to pinpoint, but there's something two-faced about TechCrunch that I don't like. It's some combination of the sensationalism, exaggeration, and in some cases outright fabrication that really get to me. Since Arrington is the founder and figurehead of TechCrunch, my feelings about the blog naturally extend to him.

The fact that page views and advertising revenue are the ultimate goals is fine. I applaud TechCrunch and Arrington for being successful. That doesn't mean I have to like their methods. Google was successful through technical merit. They never did anything flashy and eventually won because they were better. I'd like to see a startup blog succeed because of journalistic merit, instead of link-bait headlines and baseless speculation. TechCrunch has its gems to be sure, but there's too much garbage there for me.

An example for your consideration:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-b...

For those too lazy to read, it's an article about making viral videos. Some choice advice: "Content is NOT King, Make it short, Make it shocking, Use fake headlines, Appeal to sex". It also goes on to tell you how to spam yourself to the Most Viewed page on Youtube. Arrington is the founder and an editor, so either himself or someone he appointed approved this article for publication. That's why I don't like Arrington.

Perhaps the reason why people don't hate Paul like they hate Arrington is because Paul has produced things of value? Hell, having the PDF of On Lisp online available for free is more valuable than the aggregate of TechCrunch's entire publication history.

EDIT: Hate is a strong word. If you hate anyone over the internet for any reason, that's pretty stupid. Dislike is what I was getting at.

"I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to me."

Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his articles.

When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking when someone just skips it.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post by a Stanford student.

If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them.

Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his articles.

I don't care if he appears to be a nice or a mean guy. I don't judge people by that criteria. My experience working in the academic research community has taught me that intelligent and busy people sometimes come across as mean, but it's nothing personal. I'm totally used to un-ingratiating people and I work with them every day; it doesn't affect me at all.

When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking when someone just skips it.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. How about you being reprimanded for asking "mean" questions at TechCrunch 50? Apparently Arrington wanted the boilerplate. I suppose it probably has something to do with the fact that it was TechCrunch's reputation on the line, not a company he was writing about.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post by a Stanford student.

That's a fair point, but I don't really feel like wasting an hour of my evening digging through TechCrunch archives. I'll pull a TechCrunch and say that an anonymous source close to the TechCrunch editorial board told me. My original comment is about as well sourced as their average article. ;) Also, it's not hypocritical since I'm not earning advertising dollars from my words. I don't claim that journalism is my profession. If I was making money off of the words I posted to HN, I would keep track of my sources. As it stands right now, I'm simply offering an opinion.

EDIT: dfranke has some examples though: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838197

EDIT2:

If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them.

Those words were chosen in haste and I wont defend them. You're right to call me out on them. I don't actually believe that TechCrunch is in the business of outright fabrication. If I wrote a popular and influential tech blog I would have deleted those words during the editing phase. :)

You don't have to make money from what you say to be a hypocrite.

What Michael told me at TCC50 wasn't dishonest. If it had been, I'd have been upset. At an event like that, you're not going to ask exactly the same things you'd ask if a startup were actually pitching you. It's inevitably going to be somewhere between that and mere encouragement. Where between the two is simply a matter of convention. I had no idea what the convention was; I didn't mind being told.

You don't have to make money from what you say to be a hypocrite.

Why? I'm criticizing him because he's a public figure and his words affect the daily lives and well-being of many people. My arguments in my original comment do not apply to the words of individuals in casual conversation, like the one we are having here. In fact, if we held ourselves to the same standards I'm demanding of Arrington, we'd hardly be able to have a conversation. I like to assume good faith for interactions among individuals. I'm not demanding proof about your interactions with Arrington am I?

However, I did edit my previous post with a link to proof mentioned by other posters.

What Michael told me at TCC50 wasn't dishonest. If it had been, I'd have been upset. At an event like that, you're not going to ask exactly the same things you'd ask if a startup were actually pitching you. It's inevitably going to be somewhere between that and mere encouragement. Where between the two is simply a matter of convention. I had no idea what the convention was; I didn't mind being told.

Ah, so we've established that the standards one should hold oneself to in discourse is a matter of context. I argue that Arrington holds himself to the standards of a blogger when the context he operates in demands that he hold himself to the standards of a journalist. TechCrunch likes to fire shots quickly and in large quantities and it doesn't really matter if a good number don't hit their mark. I know it makes the most business sense, but I don't deal out my respect based on business savvy.

Just needed to point out, risking being seen as a hypocrite is of greater value to shaking out the truth through varied perspectives than being paralyzed.

Valid points on TCs double faceted appearance (reminds me of nature vs demeanor). I still enjoy the heck out much of their articles. Specific authors usually mean more to me than the "brand".

"This is just a rumour" is not boilerplate if it's the only reference to the source of the information. Also, "sources" is highly ambiguous: who do you mean? the guys at the bus stop or the company board members?

I bet there are a lot of people here who like your writing and dislike TechCrunch (I am one). This can't be true if people dislike you both for the same reason.

It is clear from your writing that you are after the truth, and it is clear from TechCrunch articles they are after the pageviews only. This is okay if they provided quality product, instead they provide the latest rumors with little technical understanding behind linkbait uninformative titles.

I agree with you on the general principle about TechCrunch having far too low standards, but that article you linked was incredibly useful. It gave significant insight on how to game a system that can be very lucrative, from someone who has done it. It highlights the flaws in YouTubes counts and display methods that can be taken advantage of.

That's actually the sort of thing I want to see on a blog or in a tech-focused newspaper. I could totally see that being a Wired Article (though copy-edited to be less like a how-to and more like a story).

I get a very similar feeling with techcrunch, it is as if techcrunch is the tabloid of the upcoming web culture. Rather than real journalism it is often lacking in value but techcrunch thinks it can make up for that by being first without verifying sources or even thinking about the content they are producing.

without verifying sources or even thinking about the content they are producing.

That's why I dislike Arrington. Because he heads a culture where cramming the news out the door is more important than taking reasonable steps [1] to ensure it is accurate.

There is a reason print media doesn't do that much any more! Because eventually you print a lie that does someone (or a company) serious untold damage.

In my mind the Last.fm debacle was a prime example of TC coming very close to crossing that line.

[1] that's important, no one would ever get a scoop if we needed verification signed in triplicate and investigated by a neutral third party :D

The thing that bothers me about TechCrunch is that the comment section is a cesspool. Every time I scroll down there I regret it immediately.

You know what Doctor Vinnie Boombatz would say about that one right?

Would someone explain the reference?

Doctor Vinnie Boombotz is Rodney Dangerfield's fictional doctor. (Rodney Dangerfield is a late American comedian.) Rodney had a famous joke that I will paraphrase below:

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I raise my arm over my head."

Vinnie Boombatz: "Then don't raise your arm over your head."

mattmaroon is thus saying: if scrolling down to read TechCrunch comments hurts, don't scroll down to read TechCrunch comments.

Doctor Vinnie told me I was crazy. I said "I want a second opinion" and he said "ok, you're ugly too."

"Google was successful through technical merit."

According to PEW Research, 5/6 search users can't tell the difference between the search results and the sponsored links, so the idea that Google won based on "technical merit" is pretty much wrong. To 95% of people Google was just another search engine but with better marketing.

This is silly. If your sponsored links and search results are indistinguishable but extremely relevant you still have the best search engine. And then there's the speed factor, which you've completely ignored. And better marketing? You can't be serious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com