News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence by brown9-2 on Tuesday September 06, 2011 @03:34PM (#2966924)
Why is "editorial independence" here being taken to mean the same thing as "ethical"?

Aren't these two separate issues? I don't understand how AOL having some editorial control over TechCrunch has anything to do with TechCrunch following standard journalistic ethics with regards to conflicts of interest - unless TechCrunch feels it should have the independence to not disclose conflicts of interest.

Re:Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence by wmf on Tuesday September 06, 2011 @03:46PM (#2966962)
There seems to be some discussion about exactly what "standard journalistic ethics" is. Some people would probably prefer disclosure in a case where, say, MG Sigler writes about a company that Arrington invested in. TechCruch feels that no disclosure is required in such cases because of their unique lack of editorial oversight (translation: apparently "TechCrunch" is just a bunch of independent writers who don't talk to each other).
Re:Michael Arrington: Editorial Independence by brown9-2 on Tuesday September 06, 2011 @03:50PM (#2966986)
I think it would be more accurate to characterize that dispute as being between TechCrunch and the rest of the entire journalism industry. I don't think anyone else thinks that what TechCrunch would like - selective disclosure, because "you can trust us" - is a good idea.