Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by kyro on Friday March 13, 2009 @04:48PM
(#515305)
I was waiting for him to address the last.fm post about them handing user information over to the RIAA. He really should've taken it a step further beyond merely disclosing your sources, to validating them as well. I feel this was kind of a vague shot at addressing the last.fm debacle. I do think it's noble of him to pull out of companies for the sake of TC's credibility, but there are other changes that should be made as well.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by numair on Friday March 13, 2009 @07:14PM
(#515438)
This is so utterly irrelevant. Once again, with an ominous title and tons of upvotes, I am baited into checking out what turns out to be nothing more than a pundit war. Thanks, guys!
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by tptacek on Friday March 13, 2009 @08:15PM
(#515478)
Strong disagree. I'm not entirely sure why people care what Dave Winer thinks, but Arrington wields a lot of influence, and everyone who plays ball with him increases TechCrunch's importance.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by jacoblyles on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:49PM
(#515946)
It's possible that the punchline is at the end, but I don't follow Arrington enough to know how important this is:
"Back to transparency, one change I’m going to make at TechCrunch is to get rid of all of our investment conflicts. I’ve long been an angel investor and have continued to make a very few investments even after starting TechCrunch. These investments are always disclosed and in my opinion we do more than enough to maintain transparency there. But it’s also a weak point that competitors and disgruntled entrepreneurs use to attack our credibility. So over the next few months I’m going to divest myself of all of those investments in an orderly fashion, and I’ll update readers on the progress. I’ll also discontinue making any further investments."
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by tptacek on Friday March 13, 2009 @08:13PM
(#515475)
There are sins of commission and sins of omission; for instance, TC doesn't seem to have done any reporting on Mahalo's secret botnet herder admin (a major story in every other news outlet), and on the flip side hasn't corrected egregriously unfounded rumors about Last.fm.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by physcab on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:06PM
(#515319)
It's good to see someone take such a hard stance on integrity. Unfortunately we live in world filled with dishonesty and are constantly witnessing the implosions of such individuals/companies.
MA didn't have to do what he did. It's also true that he takes a great deal of criticism for what he says and how he says it. But I have much respect for someone who blows the whistle publicly.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by kaiserama on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:57PM
(#515369)
"...as more and more ads are placed on our site"
Maybe I'm jaded into believing there really is no such thing as "objective reporting" anymore, seems everyone has a conflict of interest or 3 these days.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by mrkurt on Friday March 13, 2009 @06:28PM
(#515393)
The good publications work very hard to firewall content production and ad sales. Having watched this process in a few "good publications", I think it can work pretty well.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by kaiserama on Friday March 13, 2009 @09:07PM
(#515532)
I agree with your statement in principle, the problem arises when there may be warranted negative publicity involving one of their paid advertisers. Obviously as a business owner you don't want to jeopardize your source of income, but as a "journalist" are you really staying true to mission to be objective? And thus...a conflict of interest is born.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by wumi on Friday March 13, 2009 @10:21PM
(#515566)
the problem with the spitzer example is that Spitzer KNEW he was going to get caught ... some might see Spitzers actions as an "escape" for a man who wanted out, and had no way out from the track of success, except a moral failure.
c'mon now, he was the attorney general, do you seriously think he didn't know he was going to get caught?
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by Radix on Friday March 13, 2009 @04:52PM
(#515309)
It sounds like he was putting his money where his mouth was, but now can't? Which is better, more useful, a blogger that understands and takes part in an industry, or one that strictly comments?
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by jwilliams on Friday March 13, 2009 @04:59PM
(#515315)
Yeah - It seems like a move to satisfy people that clearly won't be satisfied?
I mean, the rules to apply to everyone indeed - I think it's unreasonable to expect someone who is effectively an industry insider to not have conflicts of interest (conversely, it's reasonable to expect transparency about it).
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by vaksel on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:08PM
(#515323)
Its not like his "money where his mouth is" approach worked. Look at the companies he invested in...they are very mediocre. A few social sites(one for dogs/one for dancing), a video site(seesmic), and an internet storage site. Nothing truly spectacular or ground breaking. Nothing that had any major success. I don't think he is yet to have an exit....I don't count edgio because that was a joke exit.
The only thing in his portfolio that was successful is Techcrunch
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by chris11 on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:33PM
(#515348)
If that is true, that might be why he is divesting. I really don't think his investments are unethical, as long as they are always disclosed.
But his investments might slightly affect his objectivity, and get his credibility attacked. And since they are not success, there is no reason he should keep them.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by vaksel on Friday March 13, 2009 @06:04PM
(#515377)
frankly I think him having the ability to disclose his investments actually was beneficial for him. He was able to plug his sites a lot more times. i.e. any time he covered a competitor
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by kyro on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:01PM
(#515316)
Would it be better for an investigative journalist who specializes in the oil industry to partake in the oil industry, or strictly comment? Would it be better for, say, an individual reporting to congress on a certain industry, healthcare and such, to take part in that industry, or strictly comment?
Seeing as TC is his biggest investment, and the main purpose of the blog is to deliver unbiased, somewhat investigative, pieces on the startup sector, it'd probably be in his best interest to pull out of companies that might bring about future accusations of Michael and TC being biased.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by byrneseyeview on Friday March 13, 2009 @09:55PM
(#515556)
The two most insightful essays I've read on oil came from a hedge fund that had a giant long position, and a commodity trader with a giant short position. You can fund a lot of research, and a lot of farting around with facts and figures, if you have billions of dollars riding on the outcome.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by Radix on Friday March 13, 2009 @07:11PM
(#515434)
As long as it is mild and transparent I don't mind it. I don't know about the oil industry, but I do know if there is a group reporting to congress on Healthcare I would prefer it to be primary care doctors and hospitalists. I definately want the right people to speak and have a stake in the industry.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by tptacek on Friday March 13, 2009 @08:14PM
(#515476)
That depends on whether you think bloggers are, in the long term, journalists. It's fine if you don't think they are, but then you'd better pay up your newspaper subscription.
Re:The Rules Apply To Everyone
by JabavuAdams on Saturday March 14, 2009 @01:14AM
(#515644)
Your customers don't know who Mike Arrington is, and they don't care whether he likes you, whether he hates you, whether you like him, or whether you hate him.
When my time was up to leave, I asked Potts if I could stay another week. He said something about being fully booked, but I offered to pay more than his usual rate and said I’d plug Surfboard House on TechCrunch (consider that a disclosure). He had (and still has) no idea what TechCrunch is, but the dollars did the trick. Schedules were juggled, I stayed.
"Back to transparency, one change I’m going to make at TechCrunch is to get rid of all of our investment conflicts. I’ve long been an angel investor and have continued to make a very few investments even after starting TechCrunch. These investments are always disclosed and in my opinion we do more than enough to maintain transparency there. But it’s also a weak point that competitors and disgruntled entrepreneurs use to attack our credibility. So over the next few months I’m going to divest myself of all of those investments in an orderly fashion, and I’ll update readers on the progress. I’ll also discontinue making any further investments."
A pox on all their houses.
MA didn't have to do what he did. It's also true that he takes a great deal of criticism for what he says and how he says it. But I have much respect for someone who blows the whistle publicly.
Maybe I'm jaded into believing there really is no such thing as "objective reporting" anymore, seems everyone has a conflict of interest or 3 these days.
Cheers!
Hehe that is so ironic coming from Arrington !!
c'mon now, he was the attorney general, do you seriously think he didn't know he was going to get caught?
I mean, the rules to apply to everyone indeed - I think it's unreasonable to expect someone who is effectively an industry insider to not have conflicts of interest (conversely, it's reasonable to expect transparency about it).
The only thing in his portfolio that was successful is Techcrunch
But his investments might slightly affect his objectivity, and get his credibility attacked. And since they are not success, there is no reason he should keep them.
Seeing as TC is his biggest investment, and the main purpose of the blog is to deliver unbiased, somewhat investigative, pieces on the startup sector, it'd probably be in his best interest to pull out of companies that might bring about future accusations of Michael and TC being biased.
I guess you really can't please everyone.
The other is www.venerosoassociates.com/Part%20I%20II%20Worldbank%20Presentation%205607.pdf
Here is a Q&A with someone who has a stake which I begrudge with some commentary from some doctors, read the comments. http://histalk2.com/2009/02/05/histalk-interviews-glen-tullm...
LadyGreen sounds like a shill.
Incest, much? Work more.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/back-i-am/
When my time was up to leave, I asked Potts if I could stay another week. He said something about being fully booked, but I offered to pay more than his usual rate and said I’d plug Surfboard House on TechCrunch (consider that a disclosure). He had (and still has) no idea what TechCrunch is, but the dollars did the trick. Schedules were juggled, I stayed.