Different sense of "source." We're the table of contents, not the articles. I meant source in the sense TC is.

Hacker News + Primary Sources > TechCrunch.

TC's stories often are the primary sources, especially for news about new startups.

But isn't much of that because of favor-trading and TC's occasionally-stated threat: "give us an exclusive or we'll cover you less"?

Similarly, one of Arrington's recommendations at the 2008 YC startup school was: if you want good coverage, leak us info so "we remember that down the road".

When there's a choice between two sources for the same story, I'd prefer the one where editorial judgment isn't driven by the constant filling and draining of a favor bank... even if that means using a source that's second-to-report.

Note well: "primary source" doesn't mean "first to report". It means "closest to the event".

Indeed, but I think PG's usage was more informal, to include times when TC is a first/exclusive/main source of new startup info.

(Otherwise, the situations where TC is truly a 'primary source', in the sense meant by a traditional journalist or historian, are not 'often' but rare.)

Ironically, it's the stories where TechCrunch serves as the primary source that seem to cause the most problems. See: Blaine Cook, Last.fm.