discredit the facts in the story, not the guy who hired the guy who used to run the site or whatever
That is why we are referring to the DNA of the company...
Meaning that its founder's character sets the tone for the future of the company...
This is fact, as founders hire people whom they believe will carry on the traits they themselves want to instill in the company...
Arrington, while successful, is a farking douchebag.
The whole of techcrunch has followed this from the sensationalism, to the lack of proof/editing, to the very fanboi-ism and game mechanics they have attempted to apply to the stories they write.
I rarely frequent TC - when I do, I find typos and grammar mistakes pretty much in every story I see.
I think the site is a joke, and the egos abound.
Do they get good scoops, sure they do - but they are CONSTANTLY offered excellent opportunity only to fumble and look like fools -- the sad part of that is that too few people actually notice and even fewer hold them to account!
TC is successful - but they really should not be.
Otherwise I have much less respect for the professionalism of your outfit.
How can I take the authors on that site serious when they themselves can't even bother to read the crap they produce.
Consider me voluntarily opted out from that nonsense. Please call me on my crap, you do not have to be perfect yourself to do so.
Well, Techcrunch didn't use this principle before writing their little piece yesterday, did they?
You get what you put in.
I wanted to see TC as some sort of redemption for this guy, a stepping away from the sort of douchebaggery he was doing previously. But, after watching TC for a number of years, it clearly was a progression to an even more potent form of sleaze. If people are using underhanded tactics with TC, then I can only conclude that they've succeeded in attracting the very same type of people which they are themselves (excluding anyone working there who is naive and unaware).