Blogs
Arrington and Wired: Keyboards at dawn
I know everyone is tsk-tsk-ing and waggling their forefingers disapprovingly at Mike Arrington for his response to Wired magazine’s drive-by blog attack on TechCrunch and its Washington Post partnership, but I for one am quite enjoying it. I actually thought Mike was pretty restrained in his latest post — and for what it’s worth, I took his Twitter message saying “eff you” to Wired as largely a joke (and apparently one fueled by drinks at the Time 100 party).
For whatever reason, Betsy Schiffman (who as far as I can tell used to be a Forbes real estate writer, and before that was at Associated Press) either has a grudge of some kind or has been implicitly or explicitly told to go after TechCrunch. I mean, come on: a “Butt Munch” category? As far as I can tell, the category applies specifically to Arrington — and Dylan Tweney of Epicenter has effectively confirmed that.
In any case, the Washington Post thing was totally offside, especially since Epicenter is clearly a competitor to TechCrunch. In my view, it was a mean-spirited jab, and I don’t blame Mike for responding the way he did. As far as I can tell, opinion seems split on whether it’s Mike’s fault for escalating things or whether Wired was in the wrong — and some people seem to be voting for both.
Related posts:
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 0 times show
license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
subscribe
grazr
Discussion
Comments for “Arrington and Wired: Keyboards at dawn”
Add New Comment
Viewing 14 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The irony for me is that the apparent conflicts Wired cites are pretty much a non-issue. There probably aren't going to be hyper-critical posts about DanceJam on TechCrunch, but it's not like he's on the board at Google and letting that shape his analysis of the Yahoo! / Microsoft debacle. The real issue is that TechCrunch seems to default to the low / easy road instead of stepping up and embracing its opportunity to make Wired and even more mainstream business publications irrelevant. That this debate has descended into a "he started it / she started it" pissing match that appeals only to a tiny minority of TC's potential audience makes it still more embarrassing.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
perhaps isn't the best gauge for whether it's a good thing to do from
a business standpoint. At the same time, however, one of the appealing
things about blogs as a source of news and commentary is that they are
run by human beings, and occasionally that shows through -- if they
just turn into replicas of stuffy print magazines then where's the fun
in that?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
think you are right. The unspoken point, of course, is that slinging
mud or ad hominem attacks draws traffic -- Mike knows it, and I'm sure
Wired knows it too. Not as many people are likely to go out of their
way to read a post that is balanced or fair, and full of tolerance and
sympathy. Sad but true.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
If you're relying on remnant inventory through ad networks, then you could argue that traffic is all that matters. But if you want to get serious about selling your own advertising at much higher rates, then it's far better to capture a really strong audience that's there because they buy in to the content, not because they like watching the train wreck.
So in the long run I think TechCrunch is sacrificing credibility AND revenue on the altar of low quality page views.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
at the same time, his "fuck you" tweet was a heck of a lot more mean-spirited than the wired piece. there's no place for that sort of gutter languague.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Should people report on start ups where they invest, know someone etc? I think some standards should be put in play that at least a third party does the review vs. the individual who has invested but if everyone who knows personal or invests personal in any given start up wasn't allowed to comment, pretty much techmeme would have no content.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
post about the same topic at ZDNet
(http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8817), in which he talked about how at
least with the blogosphere, conflicts of interest and other sorts of
interpersonal matters that affect what gets written are relatively
transparent, and therefore easier to either discount or keep in mind
when the content is being read. I see that as an overall plus.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Both authors driven (perhaps in some part subconciously) by our human tendency to watch fights more than reasoned debate. On TV, blowhards like Sean Hannity are watched more and paid much more than Charlie Rose who does some fo the best TV journalism in decades. The slope is steep and we are all sliding down fast, so might as well enjoy it.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks