No, Mike — TechCrunch is not different

by Mathew on November 1, 2006 · Comments

As my Toronto blogging friend Tony Hung writes here, Mike Arrington is venting some anger over the shots that he and TechCrunch have been taking over issues of conflict and impartiality, with a long post about how he feels like he is under attack. The first thing I would tell Mike is that he should be glad he’s coming under fire, particularly if it’s coming from the traditional media — it means he is successful enough to be making people worried (Jeneane is afraid he is channeling Dave Winer).

At one point, Mike says that TechCrunch is “a new kind of publication” and that it doesn’t “fit into a neat little box like traditional media, who refrain from financial conflicts of interest with their readers and feel that they are therefore above reproach.” He says that his site is different because it’s “all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends.”

reporter

I would certainly agree that TechCrunch is different, but not in those ways. Traditional journalism is full of columnists, commentators and beat reporters who are every bit as close to their sources, friendly with them and conflicted by those relationships as Mike. As Mitch Ratcliffe notes at ZDNet, there are lots of other online journalists in the same boat too. Nothing that TechCrunch is going through is different in that sense from dozens of investment newsletters.

As with any type of publication — online or off — the relationship with readers is by far the most important thing, since that is the foundation on which the rest of the business (if it is a business) is built. Most of Mike’s readers know that he hangs around with VCs and startups and the like, and that many of them have likely become friends. Provided he discloses obvious conflicts when they arise, most people are probably going to be perfectly happy with that.

As many people have argued before and likely will after me, journalistic objectivity is pretty much a fiction — or at least an unattainable goal in most cases. What journalists and bloggers should strive for if they want to be taken seriously is fairness, balance and honesty. All else is secondary. As my friend Scott Karp said recently, trust is the only asset we have.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Bingo. You have to have a little humility to learn from history. That's often in short supply in Silicon Valley. Come to think of it, it's distinctly lacking in many centers of power, especially in the United States.
  • LOL, Mitch. Usually that's call egocentricity.
  • Mathew Ingram
    True enough, Mitch. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it :-)
  • The problem with these laments, and they come from all over these days, not only from Mike Arrington, is that people make the mistake of thinking that because they are doing something for first time, it has never been done before.
  • Bloggsers != reporters, but == columnists.
    Mat -- very succinct, and I think we can agree on that one. :)
  • Right, I think the blogers vs. journalists debate often misses the point. The only real difference I can see is access or the willingness to go out and create access (to people, information, resources, etc.).
  • Mathew Ingram
    I would agree that the community is the deciding factor, Tony -- and they vote with their clicks. Obviously, most people are happy with Mike's conduct so far, or his readership wouldn't be growing. If he crosses the line, I expect he will suffer for it. I guess the only point we disagree on is whether bloggers are inherently different from journalists. I think bloggers are different from reporters, but I don't think they're all that different from columnists. Same issues, different medium.
  • Sure we can be held to accountability -- but its only as much as we're willing to earn. Mike Arrington's blog is hugely mega popular, but its only as accurate and credible as he's willing to be accurate and credible.

    Sounds wishy washy -- but I'm not trying to be. For the most part, bloggers are not journalists, and as such, need to be read with a grain of salt. It just happens to be that on the way up to raising Mr. Arrington as the high priest of all things Web2.0 we all forgot about that.

    The issue of accountability as bloggers is only as much as the community is willing to enforce. If everyone wants TechCrunch to be "better" or "different" I suspect that we're all going to have to lump it, because TechCrunch is a private concern.

    ALternatives? Someone (s) can create competitors
    We can stop reading TC (yeah right)
    Or, we can start removing links.

    Accountability is a community concern here -- as the community built up TC, its up to the community to "decide" what to do next.
  • Mathew Ingram
    Thanks for the comment, Steve. I would agree with you that Mike risks his credibility if he continues to think that what he is doing is all that different from what other media do. In the end, I think the delivery mechanism is irrelevant -- trust is the only currency.

    And Eric, if we need me to start saying what I had for dinner then I will know that we have crossed a line :-)
  • Steve Guttman
    I have to admit, I am simply dumbfounded at Mike Arrington's (and Tony Hung's) arguements. Basically--we should not be held to any level of accountability for what we write. We're different because we're writing about our friends. How is this different from Montel Williams taking money to shill for the government? (answer: it's not) At the end of the day, I hope Mike is getting a lot of $$ for representing these web 2 companies, because he's sliding down the long, slippery slope of lost credibility.
  • The great thing about the proliferation of online media is that it's so much more difficult to be "opaque" or even semi-transparent.

    I'm sure there is some downside to too much transparency (maybe one day the expectation will be that you must disclose what you eat for dinner every night, Mathew!) but I can't think of anything at the moment.
  • Mathew Ingram
    I would agree, Eric. And when I said honesty, I meant the kinds of things that you describe, which some prefer to call "transparency." Unfortunately, I think some people (and publications) would prefer to be semi-transparent :-)
  • Yeah, I'm baffled that Arrington would try to set himself apart like that. Stemming from your definition of honesty, I would add transparancy as something that I look for and appreciate in journalists/bloggers/writers. When I read a piece in Slate and see a "full disclosure: MSN signs my paychecks" or whatever, it really puts me at ease. I know then that the writer is doing his/her utmost to play it straight, and laying out the conflicts that they're working around helps to give me (and readers) an accurate depiction of the landscape.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: