Ok, hold on one second there mister. Ill give you that TC is very well connected - but I don't know if you've read any of the articles/listened to Paul Karr's ego any time recently -- but I have yet to see any TC posts without spelling/grammar/editing errors.

Sure, they have a sweet spot between people actually building stuff and those who read about it... but until their own staff proof-read their own pieces... lets hold off on the journalistic praise of any caliber.

And it most definitely is.

Part yes, but the poster said that Techcrunch was worthless because of the copyediting mistakes. That's not "part of", that's is.

There's a related idea which says that journalism is good stories and copy editing.

Both are wrong. Good storytelling and copy editing are part of good journalism, but they're not the whole story. In fact, they're not even the majority of the story, even though they're dominant skills of most journalists.

MA: "Hi I am Michael Arrington, I built and sold TechCrunch to AOL for $25 million dollars. We post articles online about whats going on in Tech, the Valley, etc... check it out!"

Internet: "Cool, hey Mike, I noticed that you guys seem to consistently make spelling and grammatical errors in your articles - they have good content, but is anyone checking them?"

MA: "WHAT! YOU FOOL! If you don't like the articles with all their errors then you SHOULDN'T READ IT!"

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. How about a better argument:

If you're going to call your self journalists and WRITE about technology and trends and the valley and what not AS YOUR JOB why don't YOU check your fucking work before positing it online?